The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Darshita Gupta, a CLAT 2026 candidate, seeking modification of her reservation category from Unreserved General-Women to General-Rajasthan Domicile after the declaration of the provisional merit list. The bench comprising Justice Maneesh Sharma observed that allowing such a change at a belated stage would erode the sanctity of the admission process and could not be permitted.
The petitioner had appeared in the CLAT 2026 examination and, while filling the application form, had marked her category as Unreserved General-Women without claiming domicile-based reservation. After the declaration of All India Ranks, she participated in the first counselling process, following which the provisional list was issued. Subsequently, upon realising her omission, she contacted the CLAT-Consortium authorities via email to request consideration under the domicile reservation category, attributing the error to an inadvertent mistake or technical glitch. The consortium rejected the request, stating that the deadline for form correction had expired.
Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. The respondents contended that the refusal was based on a uniformly applied policy governing all candidates, and that permitting a change in reservation category after the cut-off date would violate the principle of equal treatment.
In its reasoning, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in J. & K. Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad, wherein it was held that the status of a candidate in a competitive selection must remain consistent throughout the process; once a candidate opts for a particular category at the threshold, that choice binds her at every subsequent stage. The Court emphasized that permitting a mid-course change of category would undermine the principle of equal treatment among all candidates.
The Court further relied on the precedent set in Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Ors. v. Neetu Harsh, where the Apex Court ruled that a candidate who failed to claim reservation at the initial stage, omitted to furnish the requisite certificate, and paid the fee applicable to the general category, could not be allowed to benefit from a reserved category after selection.
Noting that the request for correction was made nearly two months after the prescribed last date for amendment of the application form, the Court characterised the plea as an afterthought. It observed that the candidate’s inadvertent error could not be cured by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court, particularly when doing so would override the deadlines uniformly applied to all candidates.
Accordingly, the bench dismissed the petition, affirming that the CLAT-Consortium’s refusal to entertain the post-deadline request was legally sustainable and in consonance with established principles governing competitive examinations. The order reinforces the necessity of adherence to procedural timelines in admission processes to ensure fairness and consistency for all applicants.