1 2025:CGHC:23340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2658 of 2025 1 - Kaushal Kumar S/o Gend Lal Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No.-18, Gali No.-05, Near Shahid Chowk, Mamta Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (Cgvyapam) Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (C.G.V.Y.A.P.A.M.), Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Akanksha Singh, on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 12/06/2025 1. Counsel for the Petitioner prays for the following relief(s):- (i)That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider representation of the petitioner for correction of his name and his father and decide the same, as per similar order dated 30.04.2025 passed in WPC No. 2113/2025, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent-authorities to give opportunity for correction of online application as mentioned in representation of the petitioner, within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.06.13 10:51:23 +0530 2 and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in the year 2022 was conducted by the respondent and the petitioner submitted the Online form for the same. The Mark- sheet was also issued in which the petitioner was found successfully eligible. He submits that in the TET mark-sheet, inadvertently his name and his father’s name have been wrongly mentioned as “Kaushal Kumar Sahu” instead of “Kaushal Kumar” and “Gendlal Sahu” instead of “Gendlal” respectively. This petition has been filed without any delay and as soon as the petitioner realized the mistake has approached this Court and also made representation to the respondent. He further submits that if the correction is not made, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner as his name and father’s name have been wrongly reflected in the TET mark-sheet and it will not make any change in the result of the petitioner. Therefore, the relief as claimed may be granted. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents/VYAPAM, on instructions, submits that if the petitioner move a fresh representation seeking necessary correction as stated in the writ petition, the same shall be considered in accordance with law within a period of 50 days. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority that, if any representation along with the documentary proof in support of his claim is filed by the petitioner for correction of his name and father’s name in the TET mark-sheet, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of 50 days in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.06.13 10:51:05 +0530