Back
CLAT 2026 Candidate Cannot Change Reservation Category After :
Dismisses Petition Seeking Belated Change of Category
The has dismissed a petition filed by a CLAT 2026 candidate seeking to change her reservation category from "Unreserved-Women" to "General Category-Rajasthan Domicile" after the results were declared and the first round of counselling had begun. Justice Maneesh Sharma, presiding over a single bench, held that permitting such a belated change would erode the .
The Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Darshita Gupta, a resident of Jaipur, applied for the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) 2026. In her application form, she selected the "Unreserved (General)" category and claimed reservation under the "Women" category. She did not, however, opt for the
"General Category – Rajasthan Domicile (GC-RJ)"
reservation.
After appearing in the exam on , she secured an All India Rank (AIR) of 649 in the General category and a category rank of 309 in the Women category. When the first provisional list was published, the last candidate selected under the GC-RJ category for had AIR 562, meaning the petitioner did not get a seat under that category. Realizing the oversight, she emailed the on , requesting a change of category, attributing the omission to an or technical glitch. The consortium rejected her request, stating that the deadline for correcting application forms had expired.
The petitioner then approached the High Court. By an interim order dated , the court directed that one seat be kept vacant at . The final petition was taken up for disposal.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Submission:
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was a resident of Rajasthan and held a valid domicile certificate. He contended that under of the Notification dated , a candidate could update her preferences for the desired university any number of times until the closure of counselling registration. He further submitted that since the last candidate selected under GC-RJ had a lower rank (AIR 654), the petitioner should be admitted. Reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgments in
and
, which allowed rectification of inadvertent errors.
Respondents' Submission:
Counsel for the respondents, including the and , argued that the refusal to alter the category was consistent with the policy applied uniformly to all candidates. They pointed out that the last date for submission of applications was , and a correction window was open until . The petitioner did not make any correction within that period. Allowing a post-result change would disrupt the counselling process and affect the rights of other candidates who had filled their forms correctly. They cited several precedents, including
,
, and the 's ruling in
.
Legal Analysis
The court meticulously examined the timeline and the governing rules. It noted that the press release dated , fixed the last date for application as , and the notification dated , allowed corrections only until . The petitioner's request for change came on , nearly two months after the deadline.
Justice Maneesh Sharma observed that a selection process is an , and a candidate's category choice at the threshold binds her at every subsequent stage. Referring to the 's judgment in , the court held that permitting a would undermine the principle of equal treatment among candidates.
The court distinguished the judgments cited by the petitioner, noting that Indra and Reena Choudhary dealt with trivial errors, not a fundamental change of reservation category. It emphasized that altering a reservation category has a on the merit list and seat allotment, and cannot be equated with updating preferences under , which only allows changing the order of preferred universities.
Key Observations
"A or modification of an application form, particularly a change of reservation category, cannot be permitted once the stipulated by the examining authority has expired."
"An or negligence on the part of a candidate cannot be cured by invoking the of this Court, particularly where doing so would override deadlines applied uniformly to all candidates."
"To permit a candidate to change her reservation category after declaration of the result, at the counselling stage and under the guise of updating preferences, would erode the and defeat the very purpose of prescribing a strict deadline for corrections."
The Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs. It vacated the interim order that had kept one seat vacant at . The court made it clear that the seat was kept only as a and did not confer any on the petitioner.
This ruling reaffirms the strict adherence to deadlines in competitive admission processes, emphasizing that candidates must exercise due diligence at the time of filling applications and within the correction window. Any deviation after results are declared will not be countenanced, as it would undermine the integrity of the selection process and unfairly prejudice other candidates.
