Correction of errors in online applications is impermissible after the stipulated correction window expires and results are declared.

The petitioner, an OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) candidate, applied online for the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) 2026 conducted by the respondents

While filling the online application form, she inadvertently marked her category as ‘OBC Creamy Layer’ instead of ‘OBC Non-Creamy Layer’

The examination instructions provided a specific correction window from December 9, 2025, to December 11, 2025

The petitioner failed to utilize this window and instead filed a representation for correction on March 23, 2026, after the results had already been declared

Seeking a direction for the respondents to correct her category and issue a fresh certificate, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

Whether the Court can direct the respondents to consider a representation for category correction in an online application form after the expiration of the stipulated correction window and the declaration of results

Clause 3 of the examination instructions issued by the respondents, which mandates that corrections to online forms must be completed within a specific three-day window following the last date of application

The Court further relied on the legal principles established by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Dharmendra Kumar v. Chhattisgarh Vyavasyik Pariksha Mandal (Writ Appeal No. 770/2024) and Preeti v. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (Writ Appeal No. 11/2025), which held that candidates are bound by the procedural timelines and instructions set by the examining body

The Court noted that the respondents had provided a clear three-day window (December 9–11, 2025) specifically for the correction of mistakes in online forms

It observed that the petitioner’s representation was submitted on March 23, 2026, which was not only far beyond the stipulated deadline but also occurred after the results had been declared

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner neglected to correct the error during the designated period, she had effectively lost the right to seek such modifications

Aligning its reasoning with the restrictive view taken by the Division Bench in similar precedents (Dharmendra Kumar and Preeti), the Court found no merit in exercising its discretionary powers to bypass the established examination protocol

The Court held that it was not inclined to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation because she had failed to adhere to the clear instructions and timeline provided for form correction, thereby losing her opportunity to rectify the category status

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly