Candidates with subsequently obtained minority certificates must be considered in future counselling against available seats.

The petitioner applied for Tamil Nadu MBBS counselling for 2026–2027 but selected “no” for consideration under the religious-minority category because she had not yet obtained her Christian religious minority certificate.

She obtained the certificate on 5 August 2026 and emailed the Selection Committee on 7 August, with a further email on 12 August, asking to be considered under that category; the respondents did not act on her request.

She participated in counselling under the management quota and was provisionally allotted a seat in the second round, but did not join.

In response to the Court’s direction, the respondents reported that 11 Christian-minority MBBS seats remained vacant after round two.

The petitioner sought permission to participate in future counselling under the Christian religious minority category.

1. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to participate in future MBBS counselling under the Christian religious minority category despite not selecting that category in her original application and seeking the change after the application deadline.

2. Whether the petitioner’s participation in counselling under the management quota and provisional allotment precluded consideration of her minority-category claim.

The Court proceeded under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, invoked in the petition’s prayer.

The prospectus and counselling process prescribed deadlines for applications and document correction, and the respondents relied on those requirements to oppose a later category change.

The Court also relied on its decision in Akshaya Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P.(MD) No.39099 of 2026, which had permitted a similarly placed candidate to participate in future counselling under a minority category upon production of the original certificate, subject to available seats.

The judgment applied the principle that participation under another category does not, by itself, permanently defeat a minority-category claim where the candidate has obtained the relevant certificate and the claim was brought to the authorities’ attention.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not produced the certificate with her original application and had consequently applied outside the minority category.

However, it considered that she obtained the certificate and communicated her request to the respondents, whose failure to process it left the request pending.

It held that her participation in the management-quota counselling did not permanently bar her from consideration under the minority category, particularly when 11 seats remained available and the relief could be confined to future counselling and subject to eligibility and production of the certificate.

Given the reported availability of 11 seats, the respondents were directed to consider her candidature if she was otherwise eligible and produced the order.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.