Availability of Vacancy Does Not Justify Category Change After NEET Results: Madras HC

New Delhi: In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court clarified that the availability of vacant OBC-NCL seats does not justify allowing a NEET-UG candidate to change her category after the declaration of the results, contrary to the governing counselling rules.

With this observation, the Madras HC bench of Justice K. Surender dismissed a plea by a candidate who had initially applied under the General category but later obtained an OBC-NCL certificate.

"The submission that the petitioner may be considered only after all eligible OBC-NCL candidates have been considered does not overcome the requirement of a valid claim to participation in that category under the applicable counselling rules. Placement at the bottom of a merit list presupposes eligibility for inclusion in that list," observed the HC bench.

"The asserted availability of vacancies does not, by itself, dispense with the prescribed requirements for changing category. Any remaining seats must be dealt with in accordance with the governing counselling rules, including the applicable provisions for subsequent rounds and conversion of seats. The proposed arrangement would create an individual exception to those requirements, rather than merely determine the petitioner’s position within the existing list. The submission that no other candidate would be displaced is therefore insufficient to justify the direction sought," the bench

Case Background:

The HC bench made these observations while considering the plea by a NEET candidate seeking a direction to participate in the NEET-UG counselling under 15% All India Quota as an OBC-NCL candidate and to consider her candidature according to her rank, reservation norms and the availability of seats.

Initially, the petitioner applied for the UG medical entrance test as a General-category candidate. However, after the results were announced and the counselling process had commenced, she applied for an OBC-NCL certificate. Subsequently, she was issued the certificate, which remained valid until March 31, 2027.

Thereafter, the petitioner sought permission to participate in the NEET Counselling as an OBC-NCL candidate. Pointing out the possibility of several seats in that category remaining vacant, the petitioner proposed that her name be placed at the bottom of the OBC-NCL merit list after every candidate originally included in that category had been considered. It was argued by the petitioner that this arrangement would neither disturb another candidate nor alter the existing order of merit.

In support of her argument, the petitioner relied on the order in the case of A.L. Vivek v. National Board of Examinations (2020). In this case, directions were issued to place a candidate at the bottom of an OBC merit list and consider against any seat remaining after the eligible candidates had been accommodated.

Reliance was also placed on the case of Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE (2005), where the Apex Court had granted relief to a reserved category candidate who had initially produced a defective certificate but later submitted the corrected certificate during subsequent counselling.

On the other hand, the National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducts the NEET-UG examination, opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had applied under the General category and had not used the correction window provided before the declaration of the results. NTA further contended that allowing post-result alterations would disrupt the orderly selection process and generate similar claims from other candidates.

NTA relied on the Supreme Court ruling in the case of S. Jeyathinathan v. National Testing Agency (2024), in which the Apex Court had dismissed a plea seeking a category change after the declaration of the results. Reliance was also placed on a 2023 Division Bench ruling of the High Court declining similar relief.

Observations by the High Court:

While considering the matter, the HC bench referred to Clauses 8 and 9 of the NEET-UG Counselling 2026 Information Bulletin issued by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC).

At the outset, the bench observed, "Clauses 8 and 9 under ‘Information for Candidates’, at printed page 6, provide that requests to change information furnished during online registration will not be entertained and expressly include category among the particulars which MCC does not alter. Clause 9 further provides that the particulars entered on the NTA portal will be pre-populated and used for counselling. Thus, the request to direct MCC to accept a different category must be examined in the light of the governing counselling scheme, and not merely the availability of a subsequently issued certificate. The prescribed category cannot be altered through an individual direction without a basis in the applicable rules or a finding warranting interference with their operation."

Referring to the case of A.L.Vivek, which the petitioner had relied upon, the HC bench noted that the order in this case had granted consideration at the bottom of the OBC merit list in the context of admission to a postgraduate course.

"That relief does not, by itself, establish an entitlement to the same arrangement in every subsequent admission process. The present request concerns NEET-UG 2026 counselling and must be tested against the rules governing that process. Further, the Division Bench decisions referred to above specifically address requests for changes in category after declaration of the results. This Court is bound by the principle laid down by the Division Bench on that issue. Accordingly, the relief granted in A.L. Vivek cannot be adopted in the present case merely because the petitioner offers to be placed at the bottom of the reserved-category list," noted the HC Bench.

The Court held that the availability of vacancies does not dispense with the prescribed requirements for changing category and any remaining seats must be dealt with in accordance with the governing counselling rules, including the applicable provisions for subsequent rounds and conversion of seats.

Accordingly, dismissing the petition, the bench ordered, "The petitioner has come up with this writ petition, as already stated, after the results were announced. The said prayer of the petitioner cannot be entertained, since an opportunity was already given to the candidates for change of category. Further, if such directions are given, they would permit requests for changes in category or other particulars beyond the prescribed period, thereby undermining the uniform application of the counselling rules. Such directions as sought by the petitioner would be unjustified. There are no grounds to accept the prayer of the writ petitioner."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/10/09/keerthi-v-vs-mcc-478968.pdf

Also Read: NEET UG 2026: Calcutta HC Rejects Plea for Post-Merit EWS Category Change