Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 582
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Shri Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
CHHATTISGARH VYAVASAYIK PARIKSHA MANDAL (CGVYAPAM) – Appellant
Versus
DEVRAJ GABEL – Respondent
WA/200/2025
Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate; Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate.
Minor clerical errors in examination applications can be corrected post-deadline if they do not affect eligibility or results.
Headnote:(A) Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test (CGTET) - Examination Instructions - Correction of application form - The appellant challenged the order allowing correction of gender in the mark-sheet after the correction window had closed. The court found that the learned Single Judge acted within discretion, as the error was clerical and did not prejudice the examination's integrity. (Paras 4, 6, 12)
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that minor clerical errors should not jeopardize a candidate's future prospects if they do not affect eligibility or results. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant conducted the CGTET 2024, where the respondent mistakenly filled his gender as 'Female' instead of 'Male.' The correction request was made after the deadline, leading to a writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge allowed the correction, stating it was a bona fide error that would not prejudice the appellant or other candidates.
Issues: The main issues were whether the correction could be allowed after the deadline and if it would affect the examination's integrity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Single Judge's decision, stating that the correction was justified as it did not affect the examination's integrity or the respondent's eligibility.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
24 .03.2025
1. Heard Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ravikar Patel, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent on I.A. No. 2 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 2 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 66 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 5040 of 2024 (Devraj Gabel vs. Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (CGGYAPAM), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner herein.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (CGVYAPAM) conducted the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test (CGTET) 2024, for which online applications were invited from eligible candidates. The TET24 - 2024 examination process as conducted by CGVYAPAM follows a structured schedule, beginning with the online application submission, which started on 07.03.2024. Candidates were advised to ensure that their applications are fully completed and submitted before the final deadline of 07.04.2024, by 11:59 p.m. However, recognizing that errors can occur while filling out the application form, a correction window had been provided from 08.04.2024 to 10.04.2024. As per the Exam Instructions (Vyapam Pariksha Nirdesh TET-2024) for the CGTET 2024, candidates were given a clear opportunity to rectify any errors in their application forms. The instructions explicitly provided that corrections could be made until the last date of submission of the application form, which was 07.04.2024. Additionally, an extra three-day correction window from 08.04.2024 to 10.04.2024 was granted to applicants for any necessary modifications. Beyond 10.04.2024, no corrections were permitted under any circumstances, as per the clearly stipulated guidelines issued by CGVYAPAM. These rules were designed to ensure a uniform and fair application process for all candidates, preventing any further modifications after the designated correction period had expired.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent/writ petitioner herein, due to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake while filling out the CGTET-2024 application form, incorrectly mentioned the gender as “Female” instead of “Male.” Upon realizing the mistake, the respondent herein approached the CGVYAPAM authorities with a representation dated 25.09.2024, requesting correction of his gender in the TET-2024 mark-sheet. However, the request was not considered as the correction window had already closed. Being aggrieved by the inaction of CGVYAPAM, the respondent filed a writ petition bearing WPC No. 5040 of 2024 before this Court, seeking directions to correct his gender in the TET-2024 mark-sheet. In response to the WPC No. 5040 of 2024, the CGVYAPAM filed a detailed return opposing the respondent’s plea for correction of his gender in the TET-2024 mark-sheet.
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/CGVYAPAM that appellant contended that before conducting any examination, CGVYAPAM issues detailed instructions (Pariksha Nirdesh), which clearly lay out the procedure for filling online applications, the permissible period for corrections, and the conditions under which modifications can be made. Further, as per Clause 3 of the Pariksha Nirdesh, candidates were allowed to rectify errors in their application forms until the last date of submission (07.04.2024) and for three additional days thereafter (until 10.04.2024). The CGVYAPAM emphasized that this policy was uniformly applicable to all candidates and that the respondent, having failed to rectify
