Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The distinction is emphasized that only genuine clerical or arithmetical mistakes can be corrected, and these corrections are not permissible if the decision reflects a deliberate, conscious act ["G. P. Pillai VS Union of India - Allahabad"] ["SMT. KETAKI DEVI AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh VS State of Goa - Supreme Court"]- ["ASHOKRAO S/O GULABRAO THAKRE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS SECRETARY, FOREST AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND 2 OTHERS - Bombay"]- ["Pyreddy Bala Chandra Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Minorities Welfare Department - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["G. P. Pillai VS Union of India - Allahabad"]- ["SMT. KETAKI DEVI AND ANOTHER vs UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS - Allahabad"]
In the realm of administrative law, governments often issue formal decisions through gazetted notifications, which carry significant weight and finality. But what happens when a mistake is discovered? Can a state government revoke or alter such a decision simply by claiming it was a clerical mistake? The question arises: once a conscious decision is taken by the state government by way of gazetted notification then thereafter the decision can not be change in the garb of clerical mistake.
This issue touches on core principles like the doctrine of functus officio (an authority's office ends after performing its function) and the limited scope of corrigenda. While corrections for genuine clerical errors may be permissible, substantive changes disguised as such are typically invalid. This blog explores the legal landscape, drawing from judicial precedents and key doctrines to provide clarity—note: this is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Once a conscious, formal decision of the State Government is made and published via a gazetted notification, that decision generally attains finality and cannot be altered or revoked merely on the grounds of a clerical or arithmetical mistake, unless the correction falls within the permissible scope of rectification of clerical errors as recognized by law. Shanti Sports Club VS Union of India - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1490
Key points include:- A gazetted notification constitutes a formal, authoritative decision of the State Government. Ashish Singh @ Rinku Singh @ Ashish Rai VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (2022)- The scope of corrigendum or errata is limited to correcting clerical or typographical errors, not substantive changes.- Corrections that amount to substantive amendments or withdrawal require proper procedures, including issuing a new notification or proper legal process.- The doctrine of functus officio and principles of finality prevent the re-opening of settled decisions unless explicitly permitted by law. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 249
A gazetted notification issued by the State Government is a formal exercise of administrative power, which, once made, is presumed to reflect a conscious and deliberate decision. Ashish Singh @ Rinku Singh @ Ashish Rai VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (2022) Such notifications are considered binding and final unless explicitly subject to revision or review through lawful procedures.
For instance, in cases involving land allotments, courts have ruled that the letter of allotment was a firm decision of the government, which ordinarily in the absence of breach of contract on the part of the appellant, the government could not revoke. Rupa & Co. Ltd. VS State Of West Bengal - 2020 Supreme(Cal) 106 This underscores the government's obligation under Article 14 of the Constitution to act predictably, consistently, fairly, reasonably, uniformly, and without caprice. Once a decision attains finality, it cannot be changed without a change in circumstances.
Similarly, in administrative decisions on affiliations or appointments, premature assumptions of finality without proper procedure have been struck down. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ASHA DEGREE COLLEGE,DHIRJIJOT,SIKHADI,GHAZIPUR VS VICE CHANCELLOR,VEER BAHADUR SINGH PURVANCHAL,UNIVERSITY, JAUNPUR - 2010 Supreme(All) 913
The legal principles governing corrigenda or errata notifications clarify that they are meant solely for correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes, not for making substantive changes or withdrawing decisions. Shanti Sports Club VS Union of India - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1490 The Supreme Court has consistently held that:- Errata refers to mistakes in printing or writing that need correction. Brij Bhusan VS State Of Delhi - 1949 0 Supreme(SC) 54- A corrigendum cannot be used to enlarge, modify, or nullify the original decision; it is limited to correction of typographical or arithmetical errors. Brij Bhusan VS State Of Delhi - 1949 0 Supreme(SC) 54
In one case under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, replacing a nomination via corrigendum was deemed illegal as it tantamounted to withdrawal of vested rights: Corrigendum can be used only to rectify a mistake of clerical or typographical error crept in on account of omission or accidental slip; but, in case it amounts to amendment, then corrigendum is not permissible. State of Rajasthan VS Bhanwar Lal Verma - 2001 Supreme(Raj) 710
Courts have repeatedly emphasized that once a decision is taken and published as a gazetted notification, it generally becomes final and binding. Ashish Singh @ Rinku Singh @ Ashish Rai VS State of U. P. - Allahabad (2022) Corrections beyond mere clerical or typographical errors are not permissible under the doctrine of rectification. Any substantive change must follow proper legal procedures, such as issuing a fresh notification. Bhanwarlal VS State - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 441
Related precedents illustrate this:- Date of Birth Corrections: The date of birth declared by a government servant and accepted by the appointing authority is unalterable except in the case of a clerical error, with strict limitations under regulations like Regulation 35AA. Late requests without proof of genuine clerical mistakes are dismissed. Nazir Ahmad Ganaie VS Union Territory of J&K - 2023 Supreme(J&K) 89- In police service cases, corrections for clerical errors in service records were allowed only if bona fide, but substantive changes post-promotion required higher authority approval. Manik Lal Deb VS State of Tripura - 2011 Supreme(Gau) 285Farooq Ahmad VS State of J&K & Ors. - 2011 Supreme(J&K) 251- Seniority and Reversion: Altering seniority via orders disguised as corrections, without show-cause notice or conscious decision-making, violates Article 14. J. Kumar VS Commissioner and Director of Survey - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 1174- Administrative decisions on mistakes of fact can be corrected, but not every mistake qualifies, and unilateral recalls are arbitrary. State of Jharkhand VS Sunil Kumar Sinha S/o Late Saryu Prasad - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 444
These cases reinforce that gazetted notifications, like those correcting taluka pairings due to alleged clerical mistakes, demand scrutiny to ensure no substantive alteration. ASHOKRAO S/O GULABRAO THAKRE vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS SECRETARY, FOREST AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND 2 OTHERS
Permissible corrections are narrowly defined:- Only genuine clerical or arithmetical mistakes that do not alter the substance. Brij Bhusan VS State Of Delhi - 1949 0 Supreme(SC) 54- Substantive amendments or withdrawals require new notifications or legal processes.- The doctrine of functus officio restricts re-opening unless authorized by statute. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 249
Exceptions include bona fide slips in records, like service books, but even these need unequivocal proof and must occur within time limits. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER FOR GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS vs AADITHYA VINAYAN - 2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4493
A conscious decision via gazetted notification is presumed final. Attempts to alter it through errata that substantively change content are legally unsustainable. Authorities should:- Distinguish clearly between clerical errors and substantive changes.- Limit corrections to clerical rectification with documentation.- Effect substantive changes via new gazetted notifications.
For individuals or entities affected, challenging improper corrigenda via writ petitions under Article 226 has succeeded when arbitrariness is shown, as in compassionate appointments or pay scale disputes where reviews exceeded statutory powers. AJMER VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED VS RAMESHWARLAL - 2017 Supreme(Raj) 2281State of Jharkhand VS Sunil Kumar Sinha S/o Late Saryu Prasad - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 444
In conclusion, while clerical fixes are allowed, using them as a garb for rethinking decisions undermines administrative integrity. This principle ensures stability in governance. Always seek professional legal counsel for case-specific guidance, as outcomes may vary by facts and jurisdiction.
#GazettedNotification, #AdministrativeLaw, #LegalFinality
As observed hereinabove, as such, there was no clerical mistake at all and a conscious decision was taken while issuing the notification dated 23/24.05.2016 and therefore, the same could not have been corrected in exercise of powers under Section 10 of the Act, 1948. ... It is contended that therefore, once a conscious decision was taken, it cannot be said that there was any clerical mis....
into account by the State Government and conscious corrected by issuing Notification dated 30.07.2013 and Notification dated 26.7.2013, due to clerical mistake the decision was taken to break the pair of two talukas one sub division at Sr.
School and countersigned by the concerned Gazetted Officer of the Education Department in immediate administrative control of the said Institution (in case the Head of Institution/School is not a Gazetted Officer). ... that period; and that such a clerical error/mistake should be in unequivocal terms established as genuine and bona fide. ... , as the case may be, shall not be subject to any alteration, except in the case of a clerical error without the orders of the #....
Coming to the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents in issuing the impugned Errata Notification, a plea was taken in the Counter Affidavit that due to inadvertence or mistake, the survey numbers were not printed. ... Hence, only arithmetical and clerical mistakes could be corrected and the scope of the notification could not be enlarged by virtue of an errata notification. ... As against 5506 sq. yards of land notified as wakf property in....
State of Orissa AIR 1966 S C 1047 it was held (at p. 1049) : "An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing. ... record as the mistake was clerical in nature. ... His representation could not be rejected as being outside the scope of clerical error. The ambit of expression 'clerical error' cannot he taken to be so narro....
This should be done by a Gazetted Officer of the Government. ... It cannot be accepted in view of the notification available at Annexure R4 of the counter-affidavit as it succinctly provides without approval of the authorities as described therein the date of birth as recorded once may not be altered 'except for clerical mistake'. ... in normal way. ... The decision of the Government of India under the mentioned Rule 79 lays down th....
Government wherefrom he was considered for being appointed by way promotion to Indian Police Services for rectification of mistake. ... Learned counsel submitted that in terms of sub rule (4) of Rule 16-A of the Rules of 1958, the Central Government has power only to correct the bona fide clerical mistake. ... The decisions, however, taken by the State Government in the interim period of 02.07.1998 to 23.09.1998 would, however, rema....
An administrative decision if taken on a mistake of fact can be corrected, but then, it is not every mistake which can be permitted to be corrected in the garb of a mistake committed in the past. Though, Mr. ... The decision was taken by the learned Single Judge has been questioned that while taking decision on 20.03.2007 there is no concurrence of the finance department but the fact about decision#HL_END....
State of Rajasthan & Others (1). It was also contended that the Government is permitted to correct a bona fide mistake occurred inadvertently but, in the instant case, it is a case of replacement by respondent No. 4 which is not permissible. ... It was held that corrigendum can be used only to rectify a mistake of clerical or typographical error crept in on account of omission or accidental slip; but, in case it amounts to amendment, then corrigendum is not permissibl....
(MS) No.80/84/GAD dated 14.3.1984 issued by the State Government in this regard i.e., in the case of change in name, religion & community, except clerical error; it is to be carried out after a person leaves the school by way of gazette notification after obtaining certificates from a competent authority ... It was accordingly that Exhibit P8 communication was issued to the writ petitioner to produce the required documents for effecting the change, which is mandatory ....
Apart from anything else, the letter of allotment was a firm decision of the government, which ordinarily in the absence of breach of contract on the part of the appellant, the government could not revoke. This is because the government is required under Article 14 of the Constitution to act predictably, consistently, fairly, reasonably, uniformly and without caprice. Once, a decision is taken by the government which has attained finality, without any change of circumstances it cannot be changed.
Further, the appointment on compassionate ground is not a right but under a beneficial legislation it is provided for the welfare of the family of the employee who died leaving behind his family in financial lurch". It is reiterated that the respondent/petitioner was not at all in need of a Bench, after considering facts of the case, arrived at the conclusion that in light of the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the employer company on July 6, 2004, appointment could have been given to the respondent/petitioner on compassionate grounds. While arriving at such finding, it....
Thereafter, a conscious decision was required to be taken, as to whether petitioner was to be reverted or not, in view of change of seniority. The requirement of law is that the parties, likely to be affected by change, should have been issued show cause notice.
The affiliation is to be granted after taking into account various pros and cons by inspecting team of the University at the invitation of the institution and thereafter a decision will be taken by the Executive Council or the Chancellor authorised to do it, in accordance with law. But merely on the basis of Committee report when the University has not arrived at any conclusion then the institution cannot say that the affiliation has been made, therefore, the affiliation will be made as a matter of course and the students will be admitted irrespective of the affiliation. If any rec....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
