A candidate who fails to correct errors in their application form during the stipulated correction window cannot seek post-result modification of their category, as the responsibility for accuracy lies solely with the candidate to maintain the sanctity of the examination process.

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

Order on Board

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :

“10.1 That, the records pertaining to the case of the petitioner, may be kindly called for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner a candidate from O.B.C. (Non Creamy Layer) instead of being wrongly considered as a candidate from O.B.C. ( Creamy Layer), in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

10.4. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the dispute arises out of the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) 2026 conducted pursuant to examination directions issued on 13.11.2025, with the examination held on 01.02.2026 across various districts of the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner duly applied for participation in the said examination by submitting all requisite documents, including her caste certificate, domicile certificate, and academic mark sheets. An admit card was issued to her, and she appeared in the examination. Upon declaration of the result, however, the petitioner was shown under the category of Other Backward Classes (Creamy Layer) instead of Other Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer), allegedly due to which she was declared ineligible. The petitioner contends that this categorization is inconsistent with the certificates furnished by her, which clearly establish her status as belonging to the Non-Creamy Layer. Aggrieved by such discrepancy, she submitted a representation before the competent authority, but no decision has been taken thereon. It is further averred that in similar circumstances, this Court has directed the authorities to consider and decide such representations.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not deciding the petitioner’s representation is arbitrary and violative of her constitutional rights. It is contended that the incorrect mention of the petitioner’s category as OBC (Creamy Layer) was purely inadvertent and occurred due to an auto-suggestion error while filling the online application form. The petitioner had no intention to misrepresent her category, and the mistake came to her knowledge only upon declaration of the result. Learned counsel emphasizes that all the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner consistently reflects her correct status as OBC (Non-Creamy Layer), and thus the error in the result is apparent on the face of record. It is further argued that the respondent authorities ought to have considered and rectified the mistake upon receipt of the representation, particularly when no prejudice would have been caused to any third party. Reliance is also placed on a prior order of this Court in a similar matter, wherein directions were issued to the authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner therein. On these grounds, it is prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to correct the petitioner’s category and grant her the consequential benefits.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the s