Admission without the requisite Central OBC certificate was cancelled, and original documents ordered returned.

The petitioner, a NEET-UG-qualified candidate, obtained a BDS seat at the sixth respondent college during counselling.

She initially produced an Andhra Pradesh community certificate and later obtained a Tamil Nadu community certificate.

The college then required a Central Government OBC certificate, but the petitioner’s community was not included in the Central Government’s OBC list.

She sought cancellation of her admission, return of her original documents, and permission to participate in upcoming mop-up counselling.

The State submitted that the third counselling round had concluded and that, under a DGHS notice dated 10 October 2026, she could not switch from an All India Quota seat to a State Quota seat or participate in the stray round.

1. Whether the petitioner’s admission, obtained under the OBC category without a Central Government OBC certificate for her community, should be cancelled and her original documents returned.

2. Whether cancellation of the admission entitled the petitioner to participate in the upcoming mop-up or stray-round counselling.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The judgment does not cite any statute, regulation, or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It considered the DGHS notice dated 10 October 2026 and the respondents’ submission that the third counselling round was final and that switching between All India Quota and State Quota was not permitted.

The Court expressly left any eligibility to participate in the stray round open and did not recognise a right to such participation.

The petitioner did not wish to join the college because she lacked the Central Government OBC certificate required for the category under which the seat had been allotted.

The Court therefore directed cancellation of the admission and return of her original certificates.

However, the State’s submissions concerning the completed counselling round and the restrictions in the DGHS notice were not displaced by that relief.

The Court accordingly made clear that its order did not entitle the petitioner to any benefit in a stray round; any participation remained dependent on her eligibility under the applicable process.

The Court did not grant her a right to participate in mop-up or stray-round counselling, stating that the order conferred no benefit in the stray round if she was otherwise eligible to participate.

Connected miscellaneous petition was closed; costs were made easy.