1 2026:CGHC:23165 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2513 of 2026 Ku. Indu Sahu D/o Murlidhar Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o E. W. S. No. 168, Pandit Deendayalpuram Colony, Chhote Attarmuda, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Chairperson Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Cg Vyapam) North Block Center 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Board Of Director Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Cg Vyapam) North Block Center 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Controller Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Cg Vyapam) North Block Center 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Collector Office Of The Collectorate, Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sarangarh, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. BP Banjare, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL. For the Vyapam : Mr. Arpit Parakh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hon'ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.05.2026 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs: “10.1 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority i.e. respondent No.4 to rectify the mistake committed by petitioner and inserted OBC non creamy layer. 10.2 That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority i.e. respondent No.5 to consider the case of petitioner and representation is still pending before the respondent No. 5 i.e. Controller CG Vyapam Raipur for rectify the mistake committed by petitioner in column of category OBC Creamy Layer in place of OBC Non Creamy Layer. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner..” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the Other Backward Category (Non-Creamy Layer) and also possesses valid documents in support thereof. While submitting the online application form for CG TET 2026 on 20.11.2025, due to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake, the petitioner wrongly selected “OBC (Creamy Layer)” instead of “OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)”. After noticing the said error, the petitioner 3 submitted a representation before the concerned competent authority seeking correction of said mistake, but the concerned authority has not considered the petitioner’s representation till date. However, the mistake is purely technical and unintentional in nature and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents- authorities if the correction is permitted. On the contrary, denial of such correction would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s candidature despite her being otherwise fully eligible under the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer, category). Hence, it is prayed that a direction be issued to the concerned authorities to correct the petitioner’s category from “OBC Creamy Layer” to “OBC Non- Creamy Layer” and consider her candidature accordingly for CG TET 2026. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Vyapam submits that the petitioner herself filled and submitted the online application form and the particulars furnished therein were entered voluntarily by her. The authorities concerned merely process the applications on the basis of information supplied by the candidates and cannot be held liable for mistakes committed by candidates while filling the form. The procedure for correction of particulars in the application form is strictly governed by the terms and conditions contained in the examination notification. Once the stipulated period for correction expires, no candidate can claim correction of entries as a matter of right. 4 Permitting such correction at a belated stage would disturb the examination process and may open floodgates for similar claims by other candidates. In absence of any arbitrariness, mala fide or illegality on the part of the concerned authorities, no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned State Counsel adopted the submissions of counsel for the respondent/Vyapam. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the mistake in the online application form was committed by the petitioner herself while submitting the form. The respondent-authorities cannot be held responsible for such inadvertent error committed by the candidate/petitioner. Moreover, correction of particulars in the application form is governed by the terms and conditions of the examination notification. Therefore, no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.