Disposed

Tilochani Sahu v. Chhattisgarh Vyavsaik Parikisha Mandal

Chhattisgarh HC10 Sept 2026WPC/1059/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh in this writ petition, where petitioners sought correction of their SET Examination certificates from 'Creamy Layer' to 'OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)', held that the matter should be decided by the concerned authority. The Court directed petitioners to submit a fresh application within one month and the authority to decide within two months, explicitly reserving views on t

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to submit a fresh application for rectification within one month and the competent authority to decide the same within two months. Court declined to express opinion on merits.

Tilochani Sahu Vs Chhattisgarh Vyavsaik… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.09.11 18:02:58 +0530

CGHC010074612023

2026:CGHC:39845

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 1059 of 2023

¶8

1 - Tilochani Sahu D/o Laxmi Prasad Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Po.Marda, Tahsil And District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Pin 493526

¶9

2 - Champa Sahu D/o Dau Lal Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o 132, Guddi Chowk, Gram Marda, Tahsil And District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Pin 493526

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - Chhattisgarh Vyavsaik Parikisha Mandal Through Its Chairman, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondents : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

11.09.2026

¶20

1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent authorities to rectify their SET Examination, 2019 certificates by correcting the category mentioned therein from

¶21

¶22

“Creamy Layer” to “OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)”. The petitioners hav e prayed for following relief(s):-

¶23

“I. The Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ (s) / order (s)/ Direction (s) and direct the respondents to correct the SET Exam Certificate of the petitioners by mentioning the category as "OBC (Non-creamy Layer)".

¶24

II. Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner. ”

¶25

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that although the petitioners had applied for and appeared in the SET Examination under the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category and had successfully cleared the examination, their certificates were subsequently issued mentioning them as belonging to the “Creamy Layer” category. The petitioners claim to have submitted representations to the respondent authorities for rectification of the said error, but no action has been taken thereon.

¶26

3. Learned counsel further submits that the grievance of the petitioners would stand substantially redressed if their representations, particularly Annexure P/5, are considered and decided by the competent authority within a stipulated period. It is submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if an appropriate

¶27

¶28

direction is issued to the concerned authority to consider the representations and take a decision thereon in accordance with law.

¶29

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the representations of the petitioners shall be considered by the competent authority and an appropriate decision shall be taken within a stipulated period, in accordance with the applicable rules and on the basis of the relevant records.

¶30

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶31

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited nature of the grievance raised by the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be served by permitting the petitioners to approach the concerned authority afresh for redressal of their grievance.

¶32

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to submit a fresh application/representation before the competent authority seeking rectification of the category mentioned in their SET Examination certificates from “Creamy Layer” to “OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)”. Such application/representation shall be accompanied by a copy of the earlier representations submitted by the petitioners, collectively filed as Annexure P/5, along with all relevant supporting documents. The petitioners shall submit such

¶33

¶34

application/representation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶35

8. In the event such application/representation is submitted within the aforesaid period, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the said application/representation.

¶36

9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners. The competent authority shall consider the application independently, after examining the relevant records and applicable rules, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order.

¶37

10. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶38

Sd/- Sd/-

¶39

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶40

Yogesh

Tilochani Sahu v. Chhattisgarh Vyavsaik Parikisha Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilochani Sahu v. Chhattisgarh Vyavsaik Parikisha Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases