T.Vidhulapriya vs The Government of India,

Court
Madras High Court

WP No. 43779 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
WP No. 43779 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012360272026}
AND
WMP NO. 49131 OF 2026
T.Vidhulapriya
Rep by her Father and Natural Guardian
Thanikaivelan C No.2 1st Floor Raji Street,
Balamurugan Nagar, Porur, Chennai 600116.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Government of India,
Rep. by its Secretary Department, of Health and
Family Welfare Ministry, Room No.348, A
wing, Nirman Bhavan New Delhi 110 011.
2. The Director General of Health Services,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirma
Bhavan, New Delhi 110007.
3. The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC),
Rep. by its Chairman D.G.H.S. Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Room No.348, A.
Wing, Nirman Bhavan New Delhi 110 011.
4. The Associate Dean for Graduate Medical,
Education (ADGME), Directorate General of
Health Services, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi
110 011.
5. The National Medical Commission,
Rep.by its Chairperson, Sector 8, Pocket 14,
Phase -I, Dwarka, New Delhi 110 077,
6. The Chairman,
Selection committee, Directorate of Medical
Education, 163, Periyar E.V.R. High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:15 pm )

WP No. 43779 of 2026
7. The Senior Director, NEET (UG)
National Testing Agency, C-20 1 A /8, Sector
62, IITK Ooutreach Centre, Noida 201309.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents, to consider
the petitioner’s representation dated 25/09/2026, submitted through Registered
Post, seeking correction of her category from General to OBC in NEET (UG)
2026 in respect of Application No.260410114911 and Roll No.4101408180.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.M.Gokul Ram
for M/s.Ram Gokul Advocates And Associates
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.T.L.Chandar,
Special Panel Counsel for R1 to R4
Mr.Sai Srujan Taji for R5
Mr.P.K.Shivakumar,
Government Advocate for R6
Ms.Sunitha Kumari,
counsel for NTS, for R7
Order
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents, to
consider the petitioner’s representation dated 25.09.2026, submitted through
Registered Post, seeking correction of her category from General to OBC in
NEET (UG) 2026 in respect of Application No.260410114911 and Roll
No.4101408180.
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:15 pm )

WP No. 43779 of 2026
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s daughter
T. Vidhulapriya, a 17-year-old minor belonging to Agamudayar (OBC)
community in Tamil Nadu, is facing an imminent threat to her medical
education prospects due to a purely inadvertent clerical error. After securing
197 out of 720 marks in the NEET (UG)-2026 exam, she discovered that an
external agency assisting her had mistakenly registered her category as
"General" instead of "OBC". The petitioner contends that this was a bona fide
online data entry mistake with no fraudulent intent, emphasizing that she holds
a valid, pre-existing community certificate and is not seeking to alter her merit
or exam scores. Despite submitting five separate representations to the
respondents between July and September 2026, her grievances remained
unaddressed. Given that the time-bound MBBS/BDS counselling process is
actively underway, the respondents' inaction will cause her irreversible
academic prejudice and hence, filed this petition for an interim direction to
provisionally permit her participation in the ongoing counselling rounds under
the OBC quota.
3. The learned counsel further submits that only after considering all the
candidates who appeared in the OBC Category, the name of the petitioner can
be directed to be listed at the bottom of the OBC list, so that it will not have any
effect on any of the other candidates. In the said process, she will not be kept
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:15 pm )

WP No. 43779 of 2026
above any of the other students and only if a seat is vacant, after all the students
in the said category have been considered, she would be entitled to a seat.
4. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in
A.L.VIVEK Vs. 1. THE NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS (NBE),
MEDICAL ENCLAVE, ANSARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110 029 AND 2
OTHERS, (W.P.No.6182 of 2020), wherein this Court in similar circumstances,
passed the following order:-
“.In view of the above discussion, this writ petition
is disposed of with the following directions: (a) The
2nd respondent is directed to place the petitioner at
the bottom of the merit list meant for Other
Backward Class community candidates who have
been called for the counseling for the Post
Graduation course. (b) After filling up the seats
based on the merit list already prepared in respect
of Other Backward Class candidates, if any
vacancies arise, the case of the petitioner shall be
considered by treating him as an Other Backward
Class candidate, provided that the petitioner
satisfies all the requirements, and (c) The
candidates who are already shown in the Other
Backward Class category in the merit list shall not
be disturbed in any manner by the intervention of
the petitioner, who is directed to be considered as
an Other Backward Class candidate.”
5. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in DOLLY CHHANDA Vs. CHAIRMAN, JEE AND
OTHERS (2005) 9 SUPREME COURT CASES 779, wherein, at para Nos.9
and 10, the Court held as follows:-
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:15 pm )

WP No. 43779 of 2026
“9. The appellant undoubtedly belonged to reserved
MI category. She comes from a very humble
background, her father was only a Naik in the armed
forces. He may not have noticed the mistake which
had been committed by the Zilla Sainik Board while
issuing the first certificate dated 29.6.2003. But it
does not mean that the appellant should be denied
her due when she produced a correct certificate at
the stage of second counselling. Those who secured
rank lower than the appellant have already been
admitted. The view taken by the authorities in
denying admission to the appellant is wholly unjust
and illegal. 10. The appellant had qualified in the
JEE-2003 but the said academic year is already
over. But for this situation the fault lies with the
respondents, who adopted a highly technical and
rigid attitude and not with the appellant. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the appellant should be
given admission in MBBS course in any of the State
medical colleges in the current academic year.”
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the third
respondent would submit that the petitioner, having claimed to belong to the
General Category, cannot now, at this stage, seek a direction for change of
category. The opportunity to change the category or any other details was, in
fact, provided by the National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducted the
examination. A Public notice was issued on 11th March 2026, wherein it was
mentioned that a correction option would be provided for the Online
Application Form of NEET (UG) – 2026. The window for corrections was
available from 12th March 2026 to 14th March 2026. However, the petitioner
failed to avail the opportunity and has come before this Court after the
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:15 pm )

WP No. 43779 of 2026
Counselling commenced. Such petitions cannot be entertained, otherwise,
there will be several other candidates who would also make such applications
and entertaining such a request by the petitioner seeking alteration of the
category would disrupt the orderly conduct of the selection process. Further,
this Court and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court had refused to grant any such
relief.
7. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in S.JEYATHINATHAN (MINOR) THROUGH HIS
FATHER Vs. THE NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY & ORS (SLP (C)
No.18211 of 2024), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the
Special Leave Petition filed by a student seeking the Court’s intervention to
change the Category after the results were announced.
8. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2602 of 2023, wherein the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court had declined the Student’s prayer to change the
category after the results were declared. In the judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the third respondent, this Court had declined to direct any change
in Category after the results were announced.
9. The Division Bench of this Court in THE CHAIRPERSON,
NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY, NOIDA 201 309 AND ANOTHER Vs.
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:15 pm )

WP No. 43779 of 2026
MINOR.M.VIKRAM BALAJI, REP. BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN – Mr.V.MARAN AND 3 OTHERS, {W.A.(MD) No.739 of
2019} vide order dated 22/7/2019, at para No.4, has observed and held thus:-
“8. The writ petition sought for changing his
communal category in the application submitted for
the NEET examination. Admittedly, such request is
made by the petitioner after the declaration of the
results. It is seen that the authorities have provided
two opportunities for the candidates, to make
necessary corrections in the on-line application, if
any, one before the examination and another, after the
examination, however, before declaration of the
results. It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner
has not chosen to utilise both the opportunities and
however, has made the request for challenging the
communal category, after the declaration of the
results. We find that the petitioner is not entitled to
make such request, as such request, if considered and
permitted, would certainly affect the All India merit
ranking list, as rightly contended by the learned
Assistant Solicitor General. Therefore, we find that
the writ Court is not justified in issuing a direction as
granted in this case. Even otherwise, the fact remains
that the petitioner, in pursuant to the order passed by
the writ Court, seems to have not become successful
before the counselling, even under the SC category.”
10. In the judgment in Dolly Chhanda’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was dealing with a defective certificate which was issued by the
Authority and subsequently, corrected. It is not a case of change of Category
after the examination result. As already stated, she applied as a General
Category candidate and nowhere did she claim the OBC category. She is
seeking a fresh category after the result was announced and it is not a case of
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:15 pm )

WP No. 43779 of 2026
curing documentary proof of an entitlement already asserted, as in the case
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
11. The NEET-UG Counselling 2026 Information Bulletin issued by
the Medical Counselling Committee, as revised on 20.08.2026, also bears on
the relief sought. Clauses 8 and 9 under ‘Information for Candidates’, at
printed page 6, provide that requests to change information furnished during
online registration will not be entertained and expressly include category
among the particulars which MCC does not alter. Clause 9 further provides
that the particulars entered on the NTA portal will be pre-populated and used
for counselling. 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 prescribed
category cannot be altered through an individual direction without a basis in
the applicable rules or a finding warranting interference with their operation.
12. The order in A.L. Vivek’s case, relied upon by the petitioner,
granted consideration at the bottom of the OBC merit list in the context of
admission to a postgraduate course. That relief does not, by itself, establish an
entitlement to the same arrangement in every subsequent admission process.
The present request concerns NEET-UG 2026 counselling and must be tested
against the rules governing that process. Further, the Division Bench decisions
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:15 pm )

WP No. 43779 of 2026
referred to above specifically address requests for changes in category after
declaration of the results. This Court is bound by the principle laid down by
the Division Bench on that issue. 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.
13. The submission that the petitioner may be considered only
after all eligible OBC 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 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.
14. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition, as already
stated, after the results were announced. The said prayer of the petitioner
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:15 pm )

WP No. 43779 of 2026
cannot be entertained, since an opportunity was already given to the
candidates for change of category. 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. Such directions as sought by the petitioner would be
unjustified. There are no grounds to accept the prayer of the writ petitioner.
14. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
K.SURENDER J.
30-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
VCA
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:15 pm )

WP No. 43779 of 2026
To
1. The Secretary Department, of Health and
Family Welfare Ministry,
The Government of India,Room No.348, A
wing, Nirman Bhavan New Delhi 110 011.
2. The Director General of Health Services,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirma
Bhavan, New Delhi 110007.
3. The Chairman D.G.H.S,
The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC),
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Room No.348, A. Wing, Nirman Bhavan New
Delhi 110 011.
4. The Associate Dean for Graduate Medical,
Education (ADGME), Directorate General of
Health Services, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi
110 011.
5. The National Medical Commission,
Rep.by its Chairperson, Sector 8, Pocket 14,
Phase -I, Dwarka, New Delhi 110 077,
6. The Chairman,
Selection committee, Directorate of Medical
Education, 163, Periyar E.V.R. High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.
7. The Senior Director, NEET (UG)
National Testing Agency, C-20 1 A /8, Sector
62, IITK Ooutreach Centre, Noida 201309.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:15 pm )

WP No. 43779 of 2026
K.SURENDER J.
VCA
WP No. 43779 of 2026
AND
WMP NO. 49131 OF 2026
30-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:15 pm )