Late minority certificate cannot bar candidate from remaining MBBS counselling rounds, Madras High Court rules

The petitioner applied for Tamil Nadu MBBS/BDS Management Quota counselling for 2026–2027, stating Telugu as her mother tongue, but selected “No” for the linguistic-minority category because she had not obtained the prescribed certificate by the application deadline.

She received certificates dated 10 and 11 September 2026, after two counselling rounds had concluded, and asked the respondents to consider her prospectively under the Telugu Linguistic Minority category in any remaining rounds.

She sought relief under Article 226 after her representations were not considered.

The respondents opposed a post-deadline category claim, relying on the prospectus and the need to maintain uniformity in counselling.

1. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to participate prospectively in the remaining Management Quota counselling rounds under the Telugu Linguistic Minority category despite not claiming that category or uploading the certificate within the prescribed period.

2. Whether the petitioner could claim any retrospective allotment or seat in rounds already completed.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to consider the petitioner’s request for relief.

It treated the right to avail benefits under the linguistic-minority category as a constitutional right and held that delayed production of a certificate should not, in the circumstances, deprive the petitioner of that benefit where the delay was attributed to the issuing authorities.

No specific statutory provision, prospectus clause, or precedent was identified in the order.

The Court noted that the petitioner had declared Telugu as her mother tongue and that the prescribed certificates were issued only after she had made efforts to obtain them.

Although she had applied under the general Management Quota and two counselling rounds had concluded, the Court considered the certificate delay attributable to the authorities rather than the petitioner, and found that the delay alone should not defeat her minority-category claim.

To avoid disturbing completed allotments, it limited any relief to prospective participation and made it subject to the petitioner’s merit, Management Quota rank, eligibility, and seat availability.

The petitioner was required to produce the certificate at the upcoming counselling round and was denied any right to retrospective allotment in completed rounds.