Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010243612025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3601/2025 MRS BULA SARKAR WIFE OF MR. S.M. SARKAR RESIDENT OF BIJNI TOWN P.O.- BIJNI P.S. - JAORI DIST.- CHIRANG BTAD, ASSAM PIN- 783390 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,DISPUR GUWAHATI-781009 EDUCATION 2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL REP .BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BTC KOKRAJHAR BTC ASSAM PIN-783370 3:THE CHARIMAN ASSAM HIGHER SECONDARY COUNCIL BAMUNIMAIDAN ASSAM PIN-781021 4:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA DISPUR ASSAM PIN-781021 5:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR BTC ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 PIN-783370 6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL CDC KAJALGAON DIST. CHIRANG BTAD ASSAM PIN-783385 7:THE PRINCIPAL BIJNI BHANDHAB H S SCHOOL BIJNI DIST. CHIRANG BTAD ASSAM PIN-783385 8:MONIKANTA BASUMATARY S/O LT. BHABEN BASUMATARY BIJNI DIST. CHIRANG BTAD ASSAM PIN-783390 9:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES BLOCK-A 3RD FLOOR ASSAM SECRETARIAT (CIVIL) DISPUR GHY ASSAM- 781006. 10:THE DIRECTORATE OF PENSION REP. BY THE DIRECTOR BANPHOOL NAGAR DISPUR BASISTHAPUR GHY ASSAM-781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K M MAHANTA, MS N BEGUM,MR S GAUTAM,M R Sharma,MR. S NATH,MRS R DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., SC, BTC Page No.# 3/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 13.11.2025 Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant assisted by Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel. He submits that in the order dated 20.02.2025 passed in WP(C) 1095/2022, there has been a typographical error, inasmuch as, instead of the words ‘petitioner’, “petitioner’s husband” has been recorded. He submits that the “petitioner’s husband” should be construed to be ‘petitioner’. Ms. B. Bora, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the BTC, Mr. M.K. Boro, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.7 & 8 and Mr. T. Thakuria, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1, 4 & 6 submit that they have got no objection to the application being allowed. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and on perusing the records, it is found that a typographical error had indeed occurred in the order dated 20.02.2025 passed in WP(C) 1095/2022. Accordingly, the words “petitioner’s husband” should be read and construed to be ‘petitioner’ in the said order dated 20.02.2025 passed in WP(C) 1095/2022. The I.A.(C) is accordingly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant