Harsha Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2159 of 2021 Harsha Verma D/o Dharmendra Verma Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Village Morid, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh , At Present Village Kasahi, Tahsil Patan District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Comptroller Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.

4. The Tahsildar Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri S.P. Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate.

For State - Shri Ravi Bhagat, Dy.G.A.

For respondent No.2 - Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 16/09/2021 Heard.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner while appearing for the TET test in the year 2019 while filling the online form of the examination inadvertently as against the column whether the petitioner is domicile of the Chhattisgarh or not, it was marked 'no' meaning thereby she was shown to be non domicile of the Chhattisgarh. In a result the benefit which ought to have been given to her under the OBC category for Chhattisgarh could not be granted and she was considered under the general category. Learned counsel for the petitioner

-2would submit that the petitioner is domicile of Tehsil Patan and in the similar like nature of case of one Mohan Lal his case was considered by the respondent No.2 and he refers to Annexure P-13 and would submit that the petitioner may also be given liberty to approach the Tehsildar Patan wherein she is resident and her credential of domicile may be verified and accordingly the respondent No.2 be directed to consider the eligibility result of the petitioner under the OBC category of the Chhattisgarh domicile.

2. Considering the prayer and after perusal of Annexure P-13 which was in the case of Mohan Lal the similar condition were considered by the respondent No.2, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur. The mistake which has been shown it may be human error while filling up the form. Considering the same, the petitioner in all fairness should be given a chance to rectify the same. Accordingly it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Tehsildar Patan with necessary document that she is domicile of Chhattisgarh and after verification if it is found that the petitioner is domicile of Chhattisgarh, then in such case she may approach to the respondent No.2 who in turn will consider the same so as to place the petitioner in the category for which otherwise she was entitled for.

3. With such observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- gouri (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge