NEET candidate cannot switch from General to OBC-NCL after results, Madras High Court rules

The petitioner applied for NEET-UG 2026 as a General Category candidate. After the results were declared on 16 July 2026 and counselling had commenced, she applied for and received an OBC-NCL certificate dated 12 September 2026.

She sought a direction permitting her to participate in the 15% All India Quota counselling as an OBC-NCL candidate, proposing that she be placed at the bottom of the OBC-NCL list and considered only if seats remained after other eligible candidates were considered.

The respondents opposed the request, stating that the NTA had provided a correction window before declaration of results and that the petitioner had not used it.

The petitioner relied on A.L. Vivek and Dolly Chhanda; the respondents relied on decisions refusing post-result category changes.

Whether a candidate who applied as a General Category candidate and obtained an OBC-NCL certificate after declaration of NEET-UG results could be permitted to change category for counselling.

Whether the petitioner could be included at the bottom of the OBC-NCL merit list and considered for any vacancies without displacing candidates already ranked in that category.

Under the NEET-UG 2026 counselling bulletin, clauses 8 and 9, MCC will not entertain requests to change information furnished during online registration, including category; the NTA application particulars are pre-populated and used for counselling.

The Division Bench in The Chairperson, National Testing Agency v. Minor M. Vikram Balaji, W.A. (MD) No. 739 of 2019, held that a post-result request to change communal category cannot be allowed where correction opportunities were provided, because it may affect the merit list.

The Court treated that Division Bench principle as binding.

Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE concerned correction of a defective certificate supporting an entitlement already claimed, not a fresh category claim made after results.

The order in A.L. Vivek directing consideration at the bottom of an OBC list did not establish a general entitlement to such relief under a different counselling scheme.

Under Article 226, the Court declined to direct an exception to the applicable counselling rules merely because the petitioner offered to be considered after other candidates.

The petitioner’s OBC-NCL claim was first made after the results were declared; it was therefore a request to change category, not a request to cure proof of an entitlement claimed during the application process.

Because correction opportunities had been provided and the counselling bulletin barred category changes, the Court applied the Division Bench ruling in Vikram Balaji and held that the request could not be allowed.

The proposed placement at the bottom of the list did not cure the problem: inclusion in that list presupposed a valid claim to the category, and the existence of vacancies did not displace the counselling rules.

Neither Dolly Chhanda nor A.L. Vivek required a different result.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.