AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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 “General Category” 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 “General Category” candidate.Immediately thereafter they made representatations in this regard on different dates but till date their representations have not been decided. He submits that a direction be issued to respondent-authority to consider and decide representation submitted by the petitioners at the earliest.
Learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioners submitted on-line application, as stated by counsel for petitioners, they himself opted “OBC(CL) Category”, 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 2022, 2006, 2009, 2021, 2016, 2011, 2013 & 2008 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.
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.
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.
Heard counsel for parties and perused record of writ petition.
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.
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 further period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of representation.
With above observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.