1 2026:CGHC:23634 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2854 of 2026 Sarita Sahu W/o Subhash Sahu Aged About 38 Years Posted As Assistant Teacher In Primary School, Gondpara, Mopka, Sankul Mopka, Tahsil Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (CGVYAPAM) Through- Its Chairman Vyapam Bhawan North Block- Sector 19 Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Vyavasyik Pariksha Mandal (CGVYAPAM) Vyapam Bhawan North Block- Sector - 19 Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal (Order on Board) 11.06.2026 1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order or suitable direction to the respondents to correct the entry in respect of caste of the petitioner as “OBC (Non Creamy Layer)” in its record and further issue result after correction. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an order or direction to the respondents for correction of her caste as “OBC (Non Creamy Layer)”. 10.3 Any other relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court deems SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded 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 result, the petitioner secured 80 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 before the 3 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 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 80 marks, which is above the qualifying marks prescribed for OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) candidates, and 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 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 counsel for the respondents 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 4 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. 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. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner applied for TET 2026 and she 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 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, 5 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. 7. Even otherwise, 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. Furthermore, similarly situated candidates have also approached this Court seeking identical relief qua present petitioner, but their writ petition has been dismissed and, thereafter, when they prefer appeal, the Division Bench of this Court affirmed the findings of the Single Bench and dismissed their wirt appeal (See: WA-770-2024 (Dharmendra Kumar v. Chhattisgarh Vyavasyik Pariksha Mandal (CGVYAPAM) and another). 8. 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/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge s@if