1 2026:CGHC:20861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2197 of 2026 1 - Saraswatibai Naresh Verma W/o Shri Naresh Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Khairbana, Post - Mohara (Mudhiya) Block Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Technical Education, Skill Development And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (C.G.V.Y.A.P.A.M.) Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (C.G.V.Y.A.P.A.M.) Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Controller Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (C.G.V.Y.A.P.A.M.), Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 2 and 3 : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to make suitable correction in the petitioner's caste detail by substituting OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) in place of OBC (Creamy Layer); 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to make suitable correction in the petitioner's result of Teacher's Eligibility Test (TET 26) following consequence of correction in the petitioner's caste detail as OBC (Non- Creamy Layer) instead of OBC (Creamy Layer); Or The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or 3 direction commanding the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P/1) preferred by the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of 15 days or within any other suitable period; and 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner applied for participation in the Teacher’s Eligibility Test (TET) 2026 for Upper Primary (Classes VI to VIII) in the subject of Social Studies/Social Science by submitting an online application on 28.11.2025. The petitioner asserts that she belongs to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category falling under the Non-Creamy Layer, which is supported by the income certificate of her family showing annual income within the prescribed limit. It is the case of the petitioner that while filling up the online application form, she inadvertently selected the category of OBC (Creamy Layer) instead of OBC (Non-Creamy Layer). According to the petitioner, such error occurred due to inadvertence and without any intention to misrepresent her category. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued an admit card in January 2026 and she appeared in the examination conducted on 01.02.2026. Upon declaration of the 4 result, the petitioner secured 81 marks out of 150 marks. However, since she was treated under the category of OBC (Creamy Layer), she was required to secure a minimum of 60% marks (i.e., 90 marks) and was thus declared ineligible. The petitioner contends that had she been correctly categorized under OBC (Non-Creamy Layer), she would have been entitled to relaxation in qualifying marks (i.e., 50% or 75 marks), and consequently would have been declared eligible. Aggrieved by the said result, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.03.2026 before the competent authority seeking correction of her category from OBC (Creamy Layer) to OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) along with consequential correction in her result. However, no decision has been taken on the said representation till date. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category and the incorrect selection of OBC (Creamy Layer) in the application form was purely inadvertent. It is contended that the petitioner had no intention to misrepresent her category and the documentary evidence on record clearly establishes her eligibility under the Non-Creamy Layer category. It is further submitted that the petitioner secured 81 marks, which is above the qualifying marks prescribed for OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) candidates, and 5 therefore denial of eligibility to her is unjust and arbitrary. Learned counsel submits that immediately upon becoming aware of the error, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking correction, but the same has not been decided. It is argued that the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not considering the petitioner’s representation is arbitrary and violative of her rights. It is also contended that no prejudice would be caused to any other candidate if the correction is allowed. On these grounds, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner herself filled the application form and selected her category as OBC (Creamy Layer), and therefore she is bound by the declaration made by her. It is submitted that the examination process is governed by strict rules and timelines, and a correction window was provided to all candidates for rectification of errors. However, the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. It is further contended that permitting correction of category after declaration of result would disturb the sanctity of the examination process and adversely affect other candidates. Accordingly, it is submitted that no interference is warranted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 – CGVYAPAM submits that the entire examination process is conducted based on the data submitted by candidates in their online application forms, and the system is automated. It is 6 contended that once the correction window is closed, no changes in essential particulars such as category can be permitted. Allowing such changes at a later stage would compromise the transparency and finality of the examination process. It is further submitted that the plea of inadvertent error cannot be accepted as a valid ground for post-result modification, and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the petitioner applied for TET 2026 and herself selected her category as OBC (Creamy Layer) while filling the online application form. It is also an admitted position that an opportunity for correction of errors in the application form was provided by the examination authority, but the petitioner did not avail the same. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the incorrect selection of category was inadvertent and that she actually belongs to OBC (Non-Creamy Layer). However, such contention cannot be accepted at this stage after declaration of the result. It is a settled principle that the responsibility for correctly filling the application form lies entirely upon the candidate. Once the application form is submitted and the correction window is closed, the particulars furnished therein attain finality and form the basis of evaluation and declaration of result. Permitting correction of category after 7 declaration of result would undermine the sanctity and integrity of the examination process. It would also lead to uncertainty and open floodgates for similar claims, thereby affecting the rights of other candidates and the overall fairness of the selection process. The petitioner has approached this Court only after being declared ineligible, which clearly indicates that the present attempt is to seek a post-result modification, which is impermissible in law. 8. The issue involved is no longer res integra and stands settled by consistent judicial pronouncements holding that no change in category or essential details can be permitted after the conclusion of the examination process, particularly when an opportunity for correction was available but not availed. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, having failed to rectify the error within the stipulated time, cannot now seek indulgence of this Court for correction of her category after declaration of result. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge