Chhattisgarh High Court rejects TET candidates’ pleas over application error

Petitioners had claimed that while filling out online application, they inadvertently selected category ‘OBC Creamy Layer’ instead of ‘OBC Non-Creamy Layer’, to which they actually belong

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed petitions filed by seven candidates who appeared for the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), seeking correction of their category from OBC Creamy Layer to OBC Non-Creamy Layer after the declaration of results, holding that allowing such changes would compromise the integrity of the examination process.

The petitioners had challenged the Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal (Professional Examination Board) and its examination controller, claiming that while filling out the online application forms, they had inadvertently selected the category “OBC Creamy Layer” instead of “OBC Non-Creamy Layer”, to which they actually belong.

In one of the petitions, a candidate stated that she had scored 80 out of 150 marks in the TET conducted on February 1. Since she was treated as an OBC Creamy Layer candidate, she was required to secure a minimum of 60% (90 marks) to qualify and was declared ineligible.

The petitioner argued that had she been correctly categorised under OBC Non-Creamy Layer, she would have been eligible for relaxation in qualifying marks and would have cleared the examination.

Opposing the pleas, counsel for the respondents, Avinash Singh, submitted that candidates had been provided a correction window from December 9 to December 11, 2025, after the application deadline of December 8. He also cited earlier High Court rulings rejecting similar requests.

Dismissing the petitions, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed that responsibility for correctly filling the application form rested entirely with the candidate. Once the correction window closed, the details furnished in the application attained finality and formed the basis for evaluation and declaration of results.

The court held that permitting changes in category after declaration of results would “undermine the sanctity and integrity of the examination process”, create uncertainty and open the floodgates for similar claims, affecting the rights of other candidates and the fairness of the selection process.

Jayprakash S Naidu is a Principal Correspondent for The Indian Express, currently serving as the state correspondent for Chhattisgarh. With an extensive career in frontline journalism, he reports on the political, security, and humanitarian landscape of Central India. Expertise and Experience Specialized Conflict Reporting: Jayprakash is a leading voice on the Maoist/Naxalite conflict in the Bastar region. His reporting provides a critical, ground-level view of: Internal Security: Tracking high-stakes encounters, surrender programs for senior Maoist leaders, and the establishment of security camps in formerly inaccessible "heartland" villages. Tribal Rights & Displacement: Investigative reporting on the identity and land struggles of thousands of displaced tribals fleeing conflict zones for neighboring states. Governance & Bureaucratic Analysis: He consistently monitors the evolution of Chhattisgarh as it marks 25 years of statehood, covering: Electoral Politics: Analyzing the shift in power between the BJP and Congress and the impact of regional tribal movements. Public Policy: Reporting on landmark infrastructure projects (e.g., mobile connectivity in remote zones) and judicial interventions, such as High Court rulings on civil and family law. Diverse Investigative Background: Prior to his current focus on Chhattisgarh, Jayprakash held reported from Maharashtra, where he specialized in: Crisis & Disaster Management: Notable for his extensive coverage of the Cyclone Tauktae barge tragedy (P-305) and the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on frontline personnel. Legal & Human Rights: Investigative pieces for platforms like Article-14, focusing on police accountability and custodial deaths across India. Environmental & Social Justice: Authoritative reporting on the Hasdeo Aranya forest protests and the approval of major tiger reserves, highlighting the tension between industrial mining and environmental preservation. ... Read More

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed petitions filed by seven candidates who appeared for the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), seeking correction of their category from OBC Creamy Layer to OBC Non-Creamy Layer after the declaration of results, holding that allowing such changes would compromise the integrity of the examination process.

The petitioners had challenged the Chhattisgarh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal (Professional Examination Board) and its examination controller, claiming that while filling out the online application forms, they had inadvertently selected the category “OBC Creamy Layer” instead of “OBC Non-Creamy Layer”, to which they actually belong.

In one of the petitions, a candidate stated that she had scored 80 out of 150 marks in the TET conducted on February 1. Since she was treated as an OBC Creamy Layer candidate, she was required to secure a minimum of 60% (90 marks) to qualify and was declared ineligible.

The petitioner argued that had she been correctly categorised under OBC Non-Creamy Layer, she would have been eligible for relaxation in qualifying marks and would have cleared the examination.

Opposing the pleas, counsel for the respondents, Avinash Singh, submitted that candidates had been provided a correction window from December 9 to December 11, 2025, after the application deadline of December 8. He also cited earlier High Court rulings rejecting similar requests.

Dismissing the petitions, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed that responsibility for correctly filling the application form rested entirely with the candidate. Once the correction window closed, the details furnished in the application attained finality and formed the basis for evaluation and declaration of results.

The court held that permitting changes in category after declaration of results would “undermine the sanctity and integrity of the examination process”, create uncertainty and open the floodgates for similar claims, affecting the rights of other candidates and the fairness of the selection process.