Disposed

Muthuramalingam R v. The Director General

Madras HC1 Jul 2025WP(MD)/17411/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Father sought correction of his daughter's NEET UG 2025 category from General to OBC after results. Following Division Bench precedent affirmed by the Supreme Court, the court held no positive direction could issue, but directed the fourth respondent to consider the petitioner under the management quota list.

What did the court decide?

Direction to fourth respondent to consider petitioner's request for management quota admission; no direction to NTA for OBC category correction; no costs.

Muthuramalingam R Vs The Director General — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No. 17411 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No. 17411 of 2025

¶7

R.Muthuramalingam ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Director General, National Testing Agency (NTA), Block C-20, Sector - 7, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 075.

¶10

The Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶11

The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶12

1/8

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P.(MD) No. 17411 of 2025

¶15

4. The Director,

¶16

Directorate of Medical Education and Research, Government of Tamil Nadu, Kilpauk, Medical College Campus, Chennai - 600 010. ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent (NTA) to immediately correct the category of the Petitioner’s daughter Sindhu M from “General” to “OBC” in all NEET UG 2025 records and databases and to issue revised/corrected documents reflecting the correct OBC category status of the petitioner’s daughter and to update and inform all concerned counselling authorities including the fourth respondent about the category correction to ensure proper consideration during MBBS/BDS admission process, consequently, direct all respondents to expedite the correction process considering the urgency of the upcoming counselling schedule.

¶18

For petitioner : Mr.A.C.Namburaj For respondents : Mr.P.Karthick for R1 Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India for R2 & R3 Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate for R4 *****

¶19

2/8

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.(MD) No. 17411 of 2025

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents 2 and 3 and learned Government Advocate for the fourth respondent.

¶24

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner after the results were published in response to the applications called for from the candidates, who appeared for NEET examination. The last date for submitting the application on-line expired on 07.03.2025.

¶25

The petitioner appears to have filed an application on the said date. However, in a hurry, he had applied under OC (General Category) instead of OBC (Other Backward Class) Category.

¶26

It is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed the application through On-line Centre and hence, mistake occurred. Further, the time

¶27

3/8

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.(MD) No. 17411 of 2025

¶30

was expiring for filing the application on 07.03.2025 at 11.50 p.m. and that by oversight, the petitioner had not opted for OBC Category.

¶31

It is noticed that results were announced on 14.06.2025 and the petitioner appears to have secured 139 marks out of 720.

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner actually belongs to ‘Thuluva Vellala’ community, which is classified as a Backward Class (BC) community as per the G.O.Ms.No.85, Backward Clases, Most Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Department (BCC), dated 29.07.2008 vide serial No.1.

¶33

It is submitted that if the petitioner's candidature is considered against among the other candidates belonging to OBC, the petitioner has a fair chance to get selected in that community on merit stage, although the petitioner has secured 139 marks only.

¶34

The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents 2 and 3 has drawn attention to decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A.(MD) No.739 of 2019 on 22.07.2017 in the case of Chairman,

¶35

4/8

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.(MD) No. 17411 of 2025

¶38

National Textile Agency, Noida and another vs. Minor.M.Vikram Balaji and

¶39

others , wherein the order of the Writ Court, dated 19.06.2019 in W.P.(MD) No. 13228 of 2019 was reversed. Relevant portion reads as under:

¶40

“8.The writ petitioner sought for changing his communal category in the application submitted for the NEET examination. Admittedly, such request is made by the petitioner after the declaration of the results. It is seen that the authorities have provided two opportunities for the candidates, to make necessary corrections in the on-line application, if any, one before the examination and another, after the examination, however, before declaration of the results. It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner has not chosen to utilise both the opportunities and however, has made the request for challenging the communal category, after the declaration of the results. We find that the petitioner is not entitled to make such request, as such request, if considered and permitted, would certainly affect the All India merit ranking list, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General. Therefore, we find that the writ Court is not justified in issuing a direction as granted in this case. Even otherwise, the fact remains that the petitioner, in pursuant to the order passed by the writ Court, seems to have not become successful before the counselling, even under the SC category.”

¶41

It is submitted that the said decision has been followed in the following

¶42

cases:

¶43

Minor.S.Jeyanthinathan vs. The National Testing Agency, New Delhi and others in W.P.(MD) No.13687 of 2024 dated 28.06.2024;

¶44

5/8

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

¶47

W.P.(MD) No. 17411 of 2025

¶48

Minor.B.Grace Daiyolifa vs. The Senior Director (Exams), New Delhi and others in W.P.(MD) No.19051 of 2024 dated 07.08.2024 .

¶49

It is further submitted that the decision of this Court 28.06.2024 in W.P. (MD)No.13687 of 2024 has been affirmed, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed S.L.P.(C)No.18211 of 2024, filed against that Writ Petition, by its order, dated 20.08.2024. Since the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench has been followed at least in two other cases cited by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, which decision stands affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prayer of the petitioner for inclusion of the name of the petitioner among the candidates belonging to OBC Category cannot be considered.

¶50

Therefore, there cannot be a positive direction to the first respondent to include the name of the petitioner among the other candidates belonging to OBC Category. However, there can be a direction to the fourth respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for being accommodated him under the management quota as per the list maintained by the fourth respondent.

¶51

With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶52

6/8

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To 1. The Director General, National Testing Agency (NTA), Block C-20, Sector - 7, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 075.

¶55

W.P.(MD) No. 17411 of 2025

¶56

01.07.2025

¶57

The Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶58