1 2025:CGHC:20703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5186 of 2024 1 - Meghraj Yadav S/o Ramesh Prasad Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o B/303 Neelyam Police Colony, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal ( Cgvyapam ) Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Ngar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Priya Kaiwart, Advocate For Respondent/s : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/05/2025 1. Heard Mr. Priya Kaiwart, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Avinash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/s. RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.05.08 10:45:29 +0530 2 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a directions towards the respondent authority to correct his middle name which has been wrongly mentioned as “Rameshwar Prasad Yadav” instead of “Rameshwar Yadav” in the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test, 2024 (in short CGTET-2024) for which application form was called online by Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal, Raipur (in short CGVyapam) 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in the year 2024 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 father’s middle name has been wrongly mentioned as “Rameshwar Prasad Yadav” instead of “Rameshwar Yadav”. 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 and by making a correction in the mark-sheet, is not going to cause any loss or prejudice to the respondent and it will not make any change in the result of the petitioner. Therefore, the relief as claimed may be granted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that if the petitioner move a fresh representation seeking necessary 3 correction as stated in the writ petition, the same shall be considered in accordance with law within 50 days. 5. In view of the above submissions, 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 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 observation(s) and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi