Madras HC Rejects NEET-UG Candidate’s Plea To Switch From General To OBC After Missing Correction Window

The petitioner, a minor who claimed to belong to the Agamudayar (OBC) community, applied for NEET (UG) 2026 under the General category, allegedly due to an inadvertent data-entry error by an assisting agency.

After the results were announced, she sought correction to OBC status, relying on a pre-existing community certificate and representations made to the authorities.

She proposed being placed at the bottom of the OBC merit list, so that existing candidates would not be displaced.

The respondents opposed the request, noting that candidates had been given a correction window and that the request came after declaration of results and commencement of counselling.

The petitioner sought a mandamus directing consideration of her representation.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue writs, including mandamus, but relief must be consistent with the applicable selection and counselling rules.

The NEET-UG Counselling 2026 Information Bulletin stated that requests to change information furnished during online registration would not be entertained and that category was among the particulars MCC would not alter; counselling particulars would be pre-populated from the NTA portal.

The Court applied the Division Bench principle in The Chairperson, National Testing Agency v. Minor M. Vikram Balaji, W.A. (MD) No. 739 of 2019, that a post-result category change, where correction opportunities had been provided but not used, was impermissible.

It also considered the dismissal of the SLP in S. Jeyathinathan (Minor) v. National Testing Agency and the decision in W.A. No. 2602 of 2023.

Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779, concerned correction of a defective certificate supporting an entitlement already claimed, not a change of category after results; A.L. Vivek v. National Board of Examinations, W.P. No. 6182 of 2020, did not establish a general entitlement to bottom-of-list consideration in a different admission process.

The petitioner had applied as a General-category candidate and did not claim OBC status in her application.

Although correction opportunities were available before the results, she sought a category change only after results were declared and counselling had commenced.

The Court held that her request was not merely a matter of supplying or correcting proof of an already asserted entitlement, as in Dolly Chhanda, but would alter the category under which she competed, contrary to the counselling scheme.

Placement at the bottom of the OBC list would not avoid that problem: inclusion in the list itself presupposed a valid claim to OBC participation, and any remaining seats had to be dealt with under the applicable counselling rules.

The Court therefore declined to extend the distinct relief granted in A.L. Vivek.

It dismissed the writ petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petition, with no order as to costs.