Chhattisgarh High Court upholds bar on changing General category to EWS during NEET state counselling

The petitioner, a 17-year-old minor represented through her father, appeared in NEET-UG 2026 and secured 444/720 marks, a percentile of 91.0329292 and All-India Rank 178177.

Although she claimed to belong to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and possessed an EWS Income and Asset Certificate dated 03.08.2026, she had inadvertently declared herself as a General Category candidate at the NEET-UG examination stage.

For State-level counselling for MBBS/BDS admissions, the State issued an online application notice dated 07.08.2026.

Clause 3 provided that EWS eligibility would be determined solely on the basis of the category declared in the NEET-UG result and prohibited candidates who had selected a category other than EWS from changing their category to EWS during counselling.

Consequently, the counselling portal did not permit the petitioner to change her category from General to EWS. Her representation dated 15.08.2026 was also not decided.

Whether Clause 3 of the notice dated 07.08.2026, restricting EWS eligibility in State counselling to candidates who had declared EWS at the NEET-UG stage, was ultra vires Rule 7(i) of the 2025 Rules?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to change her declared category from General to EWS during State counselling on the basis of a subsequently produced valid EWS certificate?

Whether the restriction under Clause 3 was arbitrary, discriminatory or disproportionate, and thereby violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Rule 7(i) of the Chhattisgarh Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy Undergraduate Admission Rules, 2025, which provides that information entered in the State counselling application, including domicile, category and class, is immutable and requires candidates to inspect the relevant certificates before selecting their category.

The Court also applied Clause 3 of the notice dated 07.08.2026, which determined EWS eligibility in State counselling on the basis of the category declared in the NEET-UG result and barred subsequent conversion to EWS.

The governing principle was that a candidate must furnish the correct category at the prescribed stage and cannot seek substitution of that category after the result is declared and the candidate knows her marks, percentile and rank.

A valid eligibility certificate, by itself, does not create an indefeasible right to claim a reserved category contrary to the prescribed admission procedure.

The Court held that Rule 7(i) did not confer an unrestricted right to alter a category during counselling.

Its reference to immutability, together with the obligation to inspect the relevant certificate before selecting the category, required finality in the particulars furnished by the candidate.

Clause 3 was therefore found to be consistent with, and illustrative of, the finality contemplated by Rule 7(i), rather than an additional or contrary condition.

Applying this interpretation to the petitioner’s case, the Court held that her declaration as General at the NEET-UG stage could not be substituted with EWS after publication of her marks, percentile and rank.

Although her EWS certificate could establish substantive eligibility, it could not override the procedural restriction applicable to the counselling process.

The restriction was considered rationally connected with the objectives of certainty, uniformity, transparency and administrative discipline in a time-bound admission process.

The pleas based on discrimination, legitimate expectation and Articles 14 and 21 were consequently rejected.

It held that Clause 3 of the notice dated 07.08.2026 was consistent with Rule 7(i) of the 2025 Rules and was neither ultra vires nor unconstitutional.

The petitioner, having declared herself as General in NEET-UG 2026, had no right to change her category to EWS during State counselling merely on the basis of her EWS certificate.

The prayer for category correction and consideration against EWS seats was refused, and the writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.