Reference to Uma Devi was expunged after authorities determined it inapplicable to the petitioners’ regularisation.

The petitioners filed a miscellaneous civil case seeking modification of the operative portion of paragraph 7 of the order dated 03.08.2026 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 9519 of 2025 and connected matters.

The original order had directed the authorities to consider the matter in light of the State’s reply in paragraph 8, as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

The petitioners submitted that, in a meeting held on 24.09.2024, the General Administration Department had already decided that Uma Devi was not applicable to their regularisation claim.

Whether the operative portion of paragraph 7 of the order dated 03.08.2026 required modification by deleting the reference to the law laid down in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi.

Whether the modified direction should require the respondent authorities to decide the matter solely in light of the State’s reply in paragraph 8 within a specified period.

The Court applied the principle that a judicial order may be modified where the record and subsequent clarification demonstrate that an expression in the operative portion does not accurately reflect the relevant factual or administrative position.

The Court considered the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi only in the context of the impugned reference in the earlier order; it did not independently determine the applicability of that precedent to the petitioners’ regularisation claims.

The remaining portions of the original order were preserved unless specifically modified.

The Court accepted the petitioners’ submission that the General Administration Department had already concluded in its meeting dated 24.09.2024 that Uma Devi did not apply to their service regularisation matter.

In view of that position, retaining the reference to Uma Devi in the operative direction could create an inconsistency with the State’s own administrative decision.

Finding the modification justified on the facts presented, the Court substituted paragraph 7 so that the authorities were directed to take an appropriate decision in light of the State’s reply in paragraph 8, without the additional reference to Uma Devi.

Paragraph 7 of the order dated 03.08.2026 in Writ Petition (S) No. 9519 of 2025 was substituted with a direction requiring the respondent authorities to take an appropriate decision in light of the State’s reply in paragraph 8 within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The remaining contents of the earlier order were left unaltered, and the present order was directed to form part of the record in the writ petition.