Vacant OBC-NCL Seats Cannot Justify Category Change After NEET-UG Results: Madras High Court

The Court dismissed a petition by a candidate who had applied under the General category but later obtained an OBC-NCL certificate.

The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking a direction to permit the petitioner to participate in NEET-UG counselling under the 15% All India Quota as an OBC-NCL candidate and to consider her candidature according to her rank, reservation norms and the availability of seats.

A Single Bench of Justice K. Surender observed: “The submission that the petitioner may be considered only after all eligible OBC-NCL candidates have been considered does not overcome the requirement of a valid claim to participation in that category under the applicable counselling rules. Placement at the bottom of a merit list presupposes eligibility for inclusion in that list.”

The Court added: “The asserted availability of vacancies does not, by itself, dispense with the prescribed requirements for changing category. Any remaining seats must be dealt with in accordance with the governing counselling rules, including the applicable provisions for subsequent rounds and conversion of seats. The proposed arrangement would create an individual exception to those requirements, rather than merely determine the petitioner’s position within the existing list. The submission that no other candidate would be displaced is therefore insufficient to justify the direction sought.”

Advocate M. Sneha appeared for the petitioner. Standing Counsel Sunita Kumari appeared for the National Testing Agency.

Background

The petitioner applied for NEET-UG 2026 as a General-category candidate. She applied for an OBC-NCL certificate only after the results had been announced and the counselling process had commenced. The certificate was subsequently issued and remained valid until March 31, 2027.

The petitioner sought permission to participate in counselling as an OBC-NCL candidate. She submitted that several seats in that category were likely to remain vacant and proposed that her name be placed at the bottom of the OBC-NCL merit list after every candidate originally included in that category had been considered.

The petitioner argued that this arrangement would neither disturb another candidate nor alter the existing order of merit. She relied on A.L. Vivek v. National Board of Examinations (2020), in which a candidate was directed to be placed at the bottom of an OBC merit list and considered against any seat remaining after the eligible candidates had been accommodated.

The petitioner also relied on Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE (2005), where the Supreme Court granted relief to a reserved-category candidate who had initially produced a defective certificate but submitted the corrected certificate during the subsequent counselling.

The National Testing Agency opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had applied under the General category and had not used the correction window provided before the results were declared. It argued that permitting post-result alterations would disrupt the orderly selection process and generate similar claims from other candidates.

The National Testing Agency relied on S. Jeyathinathan v. National Testing Agency (2024), in which the Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking a category change after the results, and a 2023 Division Bench ruling of the High Court declining similar relief.

Court’s Observations

The Court referred to Clauses 8 and 9 of the NEET-UG Counselling 2026 Information Bulletin issued by the Medical Counselling Committee. It observed that the clauses prohibited changes to information furnished during online registration and expressly included a candidate’s category among the particulars that the Medical Counselling Committee would not alter.

The Court added that the details entered on the National Testing Agency portal were to be pre-populated and used during counselling. It observed:

“Thus, the request to direct MCC to accept a different category must be examined in the light of the governing counselling scheme, and not merely the availability of a subsequently issued certificate.”

The Court held that a category entered during the application process could not be altered through an individual judicial direction without support in the applicable rules or a finding justifying interference with their operation. The Court stated:

“The prescribed category cannot be altered through an individual direction without a basis in the applicable rules or a finding warranting interference with their operation.”

The Court distinguished Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE (2005). It observed that the candidate in that case had already claimed the relevant reserved category, while the defect concerned the certificate issued by the competent authority.

In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner had applied as a General-category candidate and had never claimed OBC-NCL status before the results were announced. The Court explained:

“She is seeking a fresh category after the result was announced and it is not a case of curing documentary proof of an entitlement already asserted, as in the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

The Court therefore held that the case concerned a fresh post-result category claim rather than the correction of defective documentary proof supporting a category already claimed.

The Court observed that A.L. Vivek v. National Board of Examinations (2020) concerned admission to a postgraduate course and did not establish a general entitlement to placement at the bottom of a reserved-category list in every subsequent admission process.

The Court held that the petitioner’s request had to be examined under the rules governing NEET-UG 2026 counselling. It added that the Division Bench rulings specifically dealing with category-change requests after the declaration of results were binding.

The Court stated: “Accordingly, the relief granted in A.L. Vivek cannot be adopted in the present case merely because the petitioner offers to be placed at the bottom of the reserved-category list.”

The Court also relied on Chairperson, National Testing Agency v. Minor M. Vikram Balaji (2019), where a Division Bench had declined to permit a category change sought after the declaration of NEET results despite the candidate having been given opportunities to correct the application earlier.

The Court held that the availability of unfilled seats did not dispense with the petitioner’s obligation to establish eligibility for inclusion in the OBC-NCL list. It observed that any vacant seats had to be handled according to the provisions governing later counselling rounds and seat conversion.

The Court added that the petitioner’s proposal was not merely a request to determine her position within an existing list. It would instead create an individual exception to the prescribed category-change requirements.

The Court further observed that allowing such directions would permit candidates to seek alterations to their category or other particulars beyond the prescribed period and undermine the uniform application of the counselling rules. The Court stated:

“Further, if such directions are given, they would permit requests for changes in category or other particulars beyond the prescribed period, thereby undermining the uniform application of the counselling rules.”

Conclusion

The Court held that the petitioner could not seek OBC-NCL treatment after applying as a General-category candidate, obtaining the certificate only after the results and failing to use the opportunity provided for correcting her application.

The Court dismissed the writ petition and refused to direct the Medical Counselling Committee to place the petitioner at the bottom of the OBC-NCL merit list. It made no order as to costs.

Cause Title: Keerthi V v. The Secretary, Medical Counselling Committee and Others

Click here to read/download Judgment