A post-submission OBC claim was rejected where the application declared General category.

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus directing the KEA to recognise her as OBC notwithstanding that she had selected the General category in her application.

The court held

The Court answered the question of relief in the negative, declined to interfere under Article 226, and dismissed the writ petition.

It also directed

No direction to the KEA to recognise the petitioner as OBC was issued.

01Facts

The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) to recognise her as belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC), based on representations dated 19 August 2026.

p. 3 · ¶ 2

She stated that, through inadvertence, she had selected the General category in her UGNEET-2026 application, although she claimed to be OBC; she scored 185/720 and secured an All India Rank of 1,148,509.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3

The KEA produced a separate online application submitted by the petitioner on 20 July 2026 that also recorded her category as “GM”.

p. 6 · ¶ 8

The Court further noted that she obtained her OBC certificate on 18 August 2026, after submitting the UGNEET application on 27 February 2026.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus directing the KEA to recognise her as OBC notwithstanding that she had selected the General category in her application.

p. 3 · ¶ 2

ii.Whether the Court should grant relief under Articles 226 and 227 where the petitioner relied on inadvertent omission and an OBC certificate obtained after filing her application.

p. 7 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

p. 2

The Court relied on the UGNEET-2026 brochure and a coordinate Bench decision in Kum. Krupali B.H. v. State of Karnataka & Another, W.P. No. 31407 of 2026, which had dismissed a similar petition.

p. 5 · ¶ 7

The petitioner also relied on Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE & Others, (2005) 9 SCC 779, concerning procedural requirements for proof; the Court noted that its facts were different.

p. 5 · ¶ 6

Other decisions cited by counsel were discussed as factually distinguishable.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 4–5

04Reasoning

The Court considered that the petitioner had recorded herself as “GM” not only in her UGNEET application but also in another application submitted to the KEA.

p. 6 · ¶ 8

It also took account of the petitioner’s own statements that she obtained the OBC certificate after submitting her application.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 9

The Court followed its approach in Kum. Krupali B.H., which had addressed a similar matter by reference to the UGNEET-2026 brochure and a coordinate Bench decision, and did not apply Dolly Chhanda because the facts differed.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 6–7

In light of these circumstances, it declined to intervene.