1 2025:CGHC:36715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2905 of 2024 1 - Hetram Shrivas S/o Shri Abheram Shrivas, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Dhurkot, Tahsil And Post Dabhra, District Shakti Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director, Public Instruction, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Exam Controller, Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Poariksha Mandal (Vyapam) Raipur, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ritesh Verna, Advocate For Respondent 1 & 2/State For Respondent No.3 : : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, PL Shri Animesh Tiwari, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.07.30 10:37:46 +0530 2 28/07/2025 By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents to allow the petitioner to make suitable correction in the online form of TET examination wherein he has filled the category of OBC (CL) instead of OBC (NON-CL). The petitioner had approached the respondent authorities but they denied the same. 2. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that notification for online applications for examination of Teacher Eligibility Test 2024 was called and the petitioner had duly filled the online form but due to bonafide mistake, he filled the caste category as IBC (CL) instead of OBC (NON-CL) and after coming to know about the same, he tried to get it corrected but failed to do so. The examination was scheduled on 23.06.2024 and petitioner had appeared in the examination as was declared not eligible as he had obtained 84.972 marks out of 150 and in the category of OBC (Non CL) cut off marks is 75 and if he may be permitted to correct the category to OBC (CL) then he would be eligible. The right of the petitioner is being violated as his status being OBC (Non-CL) and despite the fact that he is possessing the requisite valid documents regarding his status. He submits that the entire career would become peril on account of the bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioner himself. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner ha been declared not eligible by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board and there is no substantial relief claimed by the petitioner against the answering respondents. 3 4. Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that specific guidelines have been framed before filling of the online forms and according to the guidelines, any mistake can be corrected till the last date of filling of the form and after three days of the last date filling of the form. He submits that the similar matter had came up before this Court in WA No. 770 of 2024, order dated 21.11.2024 (Dharmendra Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), WA No. 180 of 2024, order dated 16.04.2024 (Sonsay Wadde Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and WA No. 388 of 2023 order dated 26.09.2023 (Ritu Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.). This Court did not accept the submissions in that regard and therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Judgment as stated above. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. The case of the petitioner is that while filling of the online form for appearing in the TET examination 2024, inadvertently in the category (Caste), the petitioner has filled the form as OBC (Creamy Layer). They want to change the form the category as OBC (Non Creamy Layer). Perusal of guidelines which is placed on record by respondents counsel, it is very categorically stated that a details instruction were given before filling of the online form and it is also indicated therein that any correction in online form could have be made till the last date of filling of the form and thereafter within a further period of three days. In the opinion of this Court, the submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted in light of judgment of this Court as stated above and 4 guidelines issued by the respondents in this regard and the writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge