Correction of online application errors is impermissible after the expiry of the prescribed correction window.

The petitioner, an OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) candidate, submitted an online application to appear in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) 2026 conducted by the respondents

In the application, the petitioner inadvertently categorized himself as "OBC Creamy Layer"

Per the examination instructions, the deadline for online applications was December 8, 2025, with a correction window provided from December 9, 2025, to December 11, 2025

The petitioner filed a representation for category correction on March 23, 2026, following the declaration of results

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

1. Whether a candidate can seek correction of category status in an online application form after the expiry of the prescribed correction window and the declaration of examination results

The Court applied the specific procedural instructions issued by the respondents, particularly Clause 3, which stipulates a strict three-day window for correcting mistakes in online forms after the submission deadline

the precedents 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 such corrections are impermissible once the stipulated time has elapsed

The Court noted that the petitioner failed to avail himself of the correction window (December 9 to December 11, 2025) provided in the official instructions

The representation for correction was submitted on March 23, 2026, which the Court identified as being "far beyond the stipulated period" and, crucially, after the results of the TET had already been declared

Applying the principles laid down by the Division Bench in Dharmendra Kumar and Preeti, the Court reasoned that the petitioner’s case was squarely covered by these negative precedents

The Court concluded that since the petitioner missed the designated timeframe for amendments, the court could not exercise its discretionary powers to direct a correction after the recruitment/eligibility process had reached the stage of result declaration

The Court declined to direct the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation, as the delay was irremediable under the existing legal framework and precedents

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of