Corrigendum cannot make substantive substitution of a municipal nominee or bypass the statutory removal procedure.

A corrigendum may be used only to correct clerical, typographical or accidental mistakes. Where it changes the substance of the original notification by removing one nominated municipal member and substituting another, it is not a mere correction but a substantive alteration. Such use of a corrigendum cannot defeat vested rights or bypass the prescribed procedure for removal. The stated principles on correction of accidental errors therefore did not authorise withdrawal of the original nomination and conferment of the office on another person; the corrigendum was treated as illegal insofar as it affected the existing nominee's rights.

---

---

Issues: Whether a corrigendum could be used to substitute one nominated municipal member for another and thereby effect the removal of the earlier nominee.

Analysis: The power of correction by corrigendum is confined to rectifying clerical, typographical or accidental slips. Where the so-called corrigendum changes the substance of the original notification and operates to remove a person from office and replace him with another, it is not a mere correction but a substantive alteration. Such a device cannot be used to take away vested rights or to bypass the statutory procedure required for removal. The cited principles relating to correction of accidental mistakes do not authorise an order that in effect withdraws the original nomination and confers the office on another person.

Conclusion: The corrigendum was illegal insofar as it affected the respondent's vested rights, and the challenge to it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A corrigendum can rectify only clerical or accidental mistakes and cannot be used to effect a substantive change that removes an existing right or substitutes one appointee for another without following the prescribed legal procedure.

---