Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14013-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 200 of 2025 Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (Cgvyapam) Through Exam Controller, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus Devraj Gabel S/o Sonit Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Vicharpur, Post Fastarpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent : : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble
Legal Reasoning
Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 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 BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.25 10:38:01 +0530 2 that sufÏcient 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 3 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 4 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 his mistake within the stipulated period, could not claim a special exemption at a later stage. But, the learned Single Judge, vide its order dated 07.11.2024, was pleased to allow the WPC No. 5040 of 2024, directing the appellant/CGVYAPAM to make the necessary corrections in the respondent’s TET-2024 mark-sheet, specifically to rectify the erroneous gender entry from “Female” to “Male.” He also submits that the learned Sinlge Judge, while considering the respondent’s plea, observed that the mistake was inadvertent and was made while filling the online application form for the TET-2024 examination. The learned Sinlge Judge further noted that such a correction, being a clerical and bona fide error, would not prejudice the appellant authorities or any other candidates, as it did not affect the respondent’s eligibility or examination results in any manner. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/CGVYAPAM, the learned Single Judge emphasized that denying such a correction would result in an unjust outcome for the respondent, who had otherwise successfully qualified for the TET-2024 examination. Consequently, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant/CGVYAPAM to rectify the mark-sheet and issue a corrected version to the respondent within a period of 30 days. This decision was made in deviation from the strict provisions of the Exam Instructions (Vyapam Pariksha Nirdesh TET-2024), which allowed corrections only until 10.04.2024, and was based on the principle that minor rectifications should not jeopardize the future prospects of deserving candidate. He 5 also contended that, however, the appellant/CGVYAPAM authorities have consistently maintained that as per the Exam Instructions (Annexure A-2), no corrections were permitted beyond the last date plus three additional days and that any modification beyond this period would violate the integrity of the examination. process. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Hon'ble Division Bench, in WA No. 770 of 2024 (Dharmendra Kumar vs. CGVYAPAM), decided on 21.11.2024, upheld the rule that any corrections to the application form for CGTET-2024 could only be made until the last date and three days thereafter. The Hon’ble Division Bench, while concurring with the findings of the learned Single Judge in that case, observed that detailed instructions were issued before the application process, clearly stating that corrections could only be made within the prescribed time limit and not beyond it. The Hon'ble Division Bench further held that any relaxation beyond this period would be contrary to the established examination guidelines, potentially affecting the integrity of the process. Subsequently, in WA No. 11 of 2025 (Preeti v. CGVYAPAM), decided on 16.01.2025, the Hon'ble Division Bench reafÏrmed the principle laid down in WA No. 770 of 2024 and dismissed the appeal, reiterating that no modifications beyond the stipulated timeline were permissible. The Hon'ble Division Bench explicitly stated that since the facts and issue in that case were identical to WA No. 770 of 2024, no deviation from the previous ruling was warranted. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant states that in light of the above precedents, it is evident that the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 5040 of 2024 erred in allowing the correction of the respondents’ gender in the 6 TET-2024 mark-sheet beyond the prescribed timeline, as such relaxation directly contradicts the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Division Bench. The present writ appeal, therefore, challenges the legality of the order dated 07.11.2024, passed in WPC No. 5040 of 2024, on the ground that it is inconsistent with the established legal position upheld in WA No. 770 of 2024 and WA No. 11 of 2025, and seeks the setting aside of the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner herein submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in the year 2024 was conducted by the appellant and the respondent submitted the online form for the same. The mark-sheet was also issued vide Annexure P/1 (in the writ petition) in which the respondent was found successfully eligible. He would submit that by filling of online form inadvertently the gender of the respondent has been wrongly mentioned as F (female) instead of M (male). He stated that the mistake was bona fide and unintentional. He further submits that the examination conducted is to verify the eligibility for teaching in Class-1 to Class-5 and the petition was filed without any delay and as soon as the respondent realized his mistake has approached this Court and also made representation to the appellant. He further stated before the learned Single Judge that if the correction is not made, it would cause prejudice to the respondent as his gender has been wrongly reflected in the mark-sheet and by making a correction in the mark-sheet, is not going to cause any loss or prejudice to 7 the appellant and it will not make any change in the result of the respondent. He also relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Others, reported in (2024) 1 SCR 1. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 12. While passing the impugned order learned Single Judge held that the relief which the respondent/writ petitioner herein was claiming with
Decision
regard to correction in the mark-sheet (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition) with regard to change of his gender from F (female) to M (male). There is no dispute that inadvertently the respondent has made the mistake while filling the online form. If such correction is made, it does not appear that any prejudice would be caused to the appellant and it will not make any change in the result of the respondent/writ petitioner. Apart from this it has to be seen that it is only the eligibility test conducted by the appellant teaching in the Class-1 to 4 (2024) and the future of the respondent/writ petitioner would also depend upon the eligibility which he obtained by clearing the TET examination. The change of gender would not have any adverse effect on any of other candidates and their rights would not be affected by it. The learned Single Judge also directed the appellant authorities to correct the gender of the respondent/writ petitioner which is mentioned as F (female) be corrected as M (male) in the mark-sheet (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order dated 07.11.2024 and a new mark-sheet be issued to the respondent/writ petitioner. 8 13. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment passed in WA Nos. 770 of 2024 and 11 of 2025 are distinguishable from the present case. 14. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Brijmohan