1 2025:CGHC:4872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 556 of 2025 1 - Radha D/o Mohan Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sargipal, P.O. Binjali, Tahsil And District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal (Cgvyapam) Through Its Chairperson, Vyapam Bhawan, Norht Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal, Through Its Chairperson, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondents. : Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 28/1/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a directions towards the respondent authority to correct the name of the AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.01.29 14:41:24 +0530 2 petitioner as ‘Radha’ instead of ‘Radha Korram’ in the TET mark- sheet. 2. 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, the name of the petitioner has been shown as ‘Radha Korram’ instead of ‘Radha’. 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 her name has been wrongly reflected in the TET mark-sheet 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. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, 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 50 days. 3 4. 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 her claim is filed by the petitioner for correction of the name in the TET mark-sheet, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of 50 days in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep