1 2026:CGHC:14359 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4986 of 2023 1 - Bhuneshwar Verma S/o Vijay Kumar, Aged About 30 Years R/o Pipariya Khairagarh, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Controller Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 3 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to correct male instead of female in the result of Assistant Teacher and Teacher within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the present dispute arises out of a recruitment process initiated for the posts of Assistant Teacher and Teacher pursuant to an advertisement issued by respondent No. 2, wherein the examination was conducted by respondent No. 3. The petitioner, being eligible, duly applied and participated in the selection process. It is the case of the petitioner that while filling the online registration form on 03.05.2023, due to a technical glitch or software-related error in the system, his gender was inadvertently recorded as “female” instead of “male.” The petitioner remained unaware of this inadvertent error at the time of submission of the application form. It was only upon declaration of the result on 02.07.2023 that the petitioner came to know about the said discrepancy. Immediately 3 upon discovering the error, the petitioner took prompt steps to rectify the same by applying for correction in the online registration form. The said correction was duly carried out by the concerned authorities, and the petitioner’s gender was rectified from “female” to “male” in the registration records. However, despite such correction in the application form, the corresponding correction was not reflected in the result declared by the respondents. Thereafter, apprehending serious prejudice to his candidature and future prospects, the petitioner submitted representations dated 03.07.2023 and 10.07.2023 before the competent authorities seeking correction of the error in the result as well. It is further submitted that as on the date of filing of the petition, the final selection list has not yet been issued and only the result has been declared; therefore, there exists no legal or administrative impediment in carrying out the necessary correction. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon instances where, in similar circumstances, this Court has directed the authorities to consider representations and effect necessary corrections, which were subsequently complied with by the authorities. In view of the inaction on the part of the respondents in the present case, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in not correcting the petitioner’s result, despite rectification in the registration form and repeated representations, 4 is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. It is contended that such inaction is not only discriminatory but also unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the error in recording the gender of the petitioner was not attributable to any deliberate act or omission on the part of the petitioner, but was a consequence of a technical glitch in the online system. Immediately upon gaining knowledge of the error, the petitioner acted diligently and sought correction, which was duly effected in the registration form. However, the respondents have failed to carry forward such correction in the result, thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for an inadvertent technical error, particularly when the same has already been acknowledged and corrected by the authorities at the initial stage. The refusal or failure to correct the result is wholly unjustified, especially when the final selection list has not yet been published and no third- party rights have crystallized. It is also argued that the petitioner has made timely representations on 03.07.2023 and 10.07.2023 requesting correction in the result so that his candidature is not adversely affected. However, the respondents have failed to consider and decide the said representations, thereby compelling the petitioner to seek intervention of this Court. Learned counsel further submits that in similar cases, this Court has consistently taken a pragmatic view and directed the authorities to consider 5 such representations and carry out necessary corrections in order to ensure that meritorious candidates are not deprived of their rightful opportunity on account of technical or clerical errors. In light of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays that this Court may be pleased to issue appropriate directions to the respondents to correct the petitioner’s result in accordance with the rectified registration details and to consider his candidature fairly in the ongoing selection process. 4. Learned State counsel, at the outset and without entering into the merits of the matter, submits that the present writ petition has been filed seeking correction in the gender column of the petitioner in the result of the Assistant Teacher and Teacher examination, on the allegation that due to a technical error while filling the online application form dated 03.05.2023, the petitioner’s gender was wrongly recorded as “female” instead of “male,” which came to his notice only upon declaration of the result on 02.07.2023. It is further submitted that although the petitioner claims to have sought correction, which was partially carried out in the application form, the same was not reflected in the result published by respondent No. 3, and despite subsequent representations, no correction has been effected, leading to filing of the present petition. However, learned State counsel submits that the entire cause of action and grievance raised in the present writ petition pertains exclusively to the conduct of the examination and publication of the result, which squarely falls within the 6 domain and authority of respondent No. 3, being the examining body. It is argued that the State, in the present case, is merely a formal party and has no direct role or nexus with the issue involved or the relief sought by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that the averments made by the petitioner are misconceived, baseless, and devoid of merit, and are therefore liable to be rejected at the threshold. It is contended that the answering respondent, being the examination conducting body, namely the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM), was entrusted only with the limited responsibility of conducting the recruitment examination for the posts of Assistant Teacher and Teacher and declaring the result strictly in accordance with the terms, conditions, and procedure prescribed in the advertisement and examination instructions issued by the competent authority. It is submitted that the entire process of submission of application forms is conducted online, wherein candidates are required to create their profiles by entering their personal details, including name, category, gender, and other credentials, and are specifically cautioned to ensure accuracy of such entries, as the same form the basis for preparation of the result. Learned counsel submits that in order to minimize errors, adequate opportunity is provided to all candidates to correct any mistakes in their application forms not only till the last date of submission but also for an additional period of three days thereafter; however, beyond 7 the stipulated period, no correction is permissible in respect of the concerned examination. It is contended that the petitioner, despite having availed sufficient opportunity, failed to rectify the alleged incorrect entry regarding gender within the prescribed time and only sought correction after declaration of the result, which is impermissible under the rules governing the examination. It is further submitted that the allegation of “software error” is wholly untenable, inasmuch as the petitioner himself had last updated his profile on 25.05.2023 and had signed the declaration accepting responsibility for all entries made therein, thereby precluding him from subsequently disputing the correctness of such entries. Learned counsel further submits that the result of the examination is generated through a fully automated and transparent process based on the responses recorded in the OMR sheets and the information furnished by the candidates in their online application forms, leaving no scope for manual intervention or post-result modification. It is also contended that permitting correction at this belated stage would not only violate the established procedure but would also prejudice the rights of other candidates who had diligently complied with the instructions and whose results have attained finality. Reliance is placed upon various judgments of the Division Bench of this Court, wherein it has been consistently held that no relief can be granted for correction of errors in application forms after expiry of the prescribed correction period and declaration of results. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is 8 prayed that the present writ petition, being devoid of any legal merit and contrary to the established examination procedure, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court proceeds to decide the present writ petition. 7. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process for the posts of Assistant Teacher and Teacher pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 2 and the examination conducted by respondent No. 3. The grievance raised in the present petition is limited to correction of the gender of the petitioner in the result, which is stated to have been wrongly reflected as “female” instead of “male.” 8. From the factual matrix, it is evident that the petitioner himself had filled the online application form on 03.05.2023. The respondents had provided adequate opportunity to all candidates to verify and correct any errors in their application forms not only till the last date of submission but also for an additional stipulated period thereafter. However, the petitioner failed to avail such opportunity within the prescribed time. The correction was sought only after declaration of the result on 02.07.2023. It is well settled that in matters relating to recruitment examinations, the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the instructions governing the process are binding on all candidates. Once a candidate participates in the process with full knowledge of such conditions, 9 he cannot be permitted to turn around and seek relaxation after the result has been declared. 9. In the present case, respondent No. 3 has categorically stated that the result is generated through an automated process based on the information furnished by the candidate in the application form and the responses recorded in the OMR sheet, leaving no scope for manual alteration after declaration of the result. Permitting such correction at a belated stage would not only be contrary to the prescribed procedure but would also disturb the sanctity and finality of the examination process and may prejudice other candidates. It is also significant to note that the petitioner had signed the declaration in the application form accepting responsibility for the correctness of the entries made therein. The plea of “technical glitch” or “software error” has not been substantiated by any cogent material and, therefore, cannot be accepted at this stage. 10. Further, when a specific query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the alleged error would have any bearing on the petitioner’s future prospects, learned counsel fairly submitted that he is not in a position to state whether it would have any such effect, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has not succeeded in qualifying the said examination. 11. In light of the aforesaid admitted position, even if the correction as prayed for is carried out, it would not confer any tangible benefit upon the petitioner nor would it alter his status in the selection 10 process. The relief sought, therefore, becomes purely academic in nature. In view of the foregoing, this Court does not find any good ground to rectify the gender as it will not effect petitioner in any way. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge