Allowed

Rajesh Kumar Shrivas v. Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal (Cgvyapam)

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jul 2025WPC/1940/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against rejection of an application to correct the petitioner's and his father's misspelt names in a TET marksheet. The court held no prejudice would be caused to the respondent and allowed the petition, directing correction and issuance of a fresh marksheet within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; respondent directed to correct the petitioner's and father's names in the TET marksheet and issue a corrected marksheet within 30 days.

Rajesh Kumar Shrivas Vs Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik… — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:35152

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1940 of 2025

¶6

1 - Rajesh Kumar Shrivas S/o Lakhan Lal Shrivas Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Goyal Para, Sasaha, Pamgarh, District JanjgirChampa (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal (Cgvyapam) Through Exam Controller, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raiipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ravikar Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Avinash Singh, Advocate

¶12

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

22/07/2025

¶15

The petitioner, by way of this petition has challenged the order dated 09.03.2025 whereby the respondent authority has rejected the application for correction of petitioner’s name and his father’s name in the TET Marksheet. He therefore is seeking for the following relief:-

¶16

10.1 that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be

¶17

¶18

pleased to set aside the order dated 09.,03.2025 (Annexure P/5) passed by the respondent authority and to direct the respondent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner. 10.2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue necessary direction to the respondent authority to consider the representation dated 25.09.2024 and correct the spelling “Rajesh Kumar Shrivas” and his father’s name is “Lakhan Lal Shrivas” in TET marksheet. 10.3. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the respondent authority that after the correction, provide the correct TET marksheet to the petitioner. 10.4. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) in the year 2023 was conducted by the respondent and the petitioner submitted the online form for the same. The Mark-sheet was also issued vide Annexure P-1 in which the petitioner was found successfully eligible. He submits that by filling of online form inadvertently the name of the petitioner and his father has been wrongly mentioned as “Rajesh Shreevas” and “Lakhan Lal Shriwas” instead of “Rajesh Kumar Shrivas” and his father’s name is “Lakhan Lal Shrivas” . He submits 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. This petition has been filed without any delay and as soon as the petitioner realized his mistake has approached this Court and also made representation to the respondent.

¶20

¶21

He further submits that if the correction is not made, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner as his name 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 the respondent and it will not make any change in the result of the petitioner. Therefore, the relief as claimed may be granted.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that detailed instructions were issued by the respondent before filling up the form and it was mentioned in the instructions that the correction can be made till last date of filling of the application or after 3 days from the date of filling of the application, therefore the petitioner himself has committed a mistake which cannot be rectified.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

The relief which the petitioner is claiming with regard to correction in the mark-sheet Annexure P-1 with regard to the name of the petitioner and his father which has been wrongly mentioned as “Rajesh Shreevas” and “Lakhan Lal Shriwas” instead of “Rajesh Kumar Shrivas” and his father’s name is “Lakhan Lal Shrivas”. There is no dispute that inadvertently the petitioner 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 respondent and it will not make any change in the result of the petitioner. Apart from this it has to be seen that it is only the eligibility test conducted by the respondent teaching in the Class-1 to 5 (2024) and the future of the petitioner would also depend upon the eligibility which he obtained by clearing the

¶25

¶26

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.

¶27

In light of above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made at the bar, this Court is inclined to allow this writ petition with direction to the respondent to correct the name of the petitioner and his father which has been wrongly mentioned as “Rajesh Shreevas” and “Lakhan Lal Shriwas” instead of “Rajesh Kumar Shrivas” and his father’s name is “Lakhan Lal Shrivas”. In the Mark-sheet Annexure P-1. This exercise be done by the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and a new mark-sheet be issued to the petitioner.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶30

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date:2025.07.25 11:35:00 +0530

Rajesh Kumar Shrivas v. Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal (Cgvyapam)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Shrivas v. Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal (Cgvyapam)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Agrawal, Director Vs Vijay Agrawal

Radhe Shyam Mehra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rizwan Memon (Proprietor M/S Rajju Bhai Memon Rice Industries) Vs Union of India

Manish Agrawal Director Vs Natwar Rateria

Sukumar Chaudhary Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Itwar Singh Paikra Vs Union of India