Chattisgarh High Court
Shobha Dewangan vs Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha ... on 29 November, 2022
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 5202 of 2022
1. Shobha Dewangan D/o Ramesh Dewangan Aged About 22 Years R/o
Ward No. 5, Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
2. Babli Yadav D/o Lakhan Lal Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o 293, Yadav
Mohalla, Mudapar, District Korba Chhattisgarh
3. Anita Nishad W/o Chola Ram Nishad Aged About 29 Years R/o Village
Sirsida District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
4. Satya Prakash S/o Satish Kumar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Suluni,
Post Suluni Bilaspur District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
5. Reena Jaiswal W/o Mahendra Jaiswal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Mungeli Tahsil Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
6. Kavit Verma D/o Ramesh Kumar Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Suma
Post Tarenga, Tah Bhatapara District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh
7. Satyendra Kumar S/o Neelambar Singh Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village Chandkhuri Bhatha Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh
8. Kanchan Yadav D/o Kapil Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Thema,
Tah Narharpur District Kanker Chhattisgarh
9. Megheshwar Kumar Sahu S/o Makaram Lal Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/
o Village Khapti Chamar Tah Khapti Chamar District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh
10. Rahul Kashyap S/o Late Ramashankar Kashyap Aged About 35
Years R/o Village Sadar Road Ambikapur Tah Ambikapur District Sarguja
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (Cg Vyapam) Vyapam, Bhawan
North Block Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2. Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal (Cgvyapam)
Vyapam, Bhawan North Block Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Faisal Akhtar, Advocate
2
For Respondents : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
29.11.2022
1. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners appeared in Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by respondent No.1/VYAPAM in the year 2022. At the time of submission of their application form online, petitioners inadvertently put mark in "Other Backward Class Category(Creamy Layer)" instead of "Other Backward Class Category (Non Creamy Layer)". Petitioners belong to OBC Category (Non Creamy Layer). On declaration of result, petitioners came to know that they were not considered as OBC Category (Non Creamy Layer) candidate. Upon enquiry, it revealed that they were treated as "OBC Category(Creamy Layer)" candidate. Immediately, thereafter petitioners submitted representation before respondent-authority, but till date the said representations have not been considered and decided. He submits that a direction be issued to respondent-authority to consider and decide representation submitted by the petitioners at the earliest.
2. Learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioners submitted on-line application, as stated by counsel for petitioners, they himself opted "OBC Category(Creamy Layer)", hence, their candidature were considered according to details given by them in application. He also contended that along with writ petition, petitioners submitted their 'social status certificate' issued by Competent Authority of the year 2017, 2010, 2013, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2009, 2013, 2009 & 2020 3 respectively. As per requirement, candidates are required to submit recent social status certificate issued by competent authority with application form for considering 'whether candidate comes within non- creamy layer or not'. He also contended that if petitioners submit their latest social status certificate before the authority along with representation, the same will be considered and decided expeditiously.
3. Counsel for the Respondents submits that since the claim of the petitioners is only for participation in the elgibility test, the Respondents are considering the claim of such candidates with permissible rectification.
4. At this stage, counsel for petitioners submits that in view of objection raised by counsel for respondents, petitioners may be permitted to file fresh representation along with recent social status certificate, for which some time may be granted to petitioners.
5. Heard counsel for parties and perused record of writ petition.
6. Considering facts and circumstances of case, nature of grievance, submissions of counsel for parties, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at the motion stage itself without going into merits of claim of petitioners, directing respondents to decide the representation of petitioner.
7. In view of above, petitioners are directed to file fresh representation before the respondent-authority along with his social status certificate issued by the Competent Authority within a period of six weeks from today. On making such representation, respondent-authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a 4 further period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of representation.
8. With above observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit