Rajasthan High Court Declines CLAT Candidate's Plea To Change Reservation Category After Result Declaration

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a CLAT 2026 candidate seeking modification of her reservation category from Unreserved General-Women to General-Rajasthan Domicile, after the first provisional list was already declared by the CLAT-Consortium.

The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma observed that a belated correction or modification of an application form, especially change of reservation category, post expiry of the cut-off date would erode the sanctity of the admission process, and hence could not be allowed.

The Court further observed that candidate's inadvertent error could not be cured by invoking writ jurisdiction of the Court, particularly when doing so would override the deadlines uniformly applied to all candidates.

For context, the petitioner had appeared in CLAT-2026 examination, and while filling the application form, she had marked the Unreserved General-Women category, without claiming the domicile reservation. After declaration of All India Ranks, she participated in the first counselling process, post which the provisional list was issued.

Post issuance of this provisional list, the petitioner realised her mistake, and emailed the concerned authorities to consider her within the domicile reservation category which was not opted while in the application form owing to an inadvertent error/technical glitch.

This request was rejected by the consortium since the request was raised after the deadline for form correction had expired. Against this, the present petition was filed.

It was argued by the respondents that the petitioner's request was declined based on a policy which was consistently applied to all the candidates. Such change in reservation category could not be allowed at a belated change, post declaration of result.

After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of J. & K. Public Service Commission v. Israr Ahmad in which 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. Permitting a mid-course change of category would undermine the principle of equal treatment among all candidates.”

Further reference was made to the case of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Ors. Vs. Neetu Harsh in which the Apex Court had ruled that a candidate who failed to claim reservation at initial stage, omitted to provide requisite certificate, and paid the general category fee, could not be allowed to benefit from a reserved category after selection.

In this background, the Court made the aforementioned observation, and also opined that such a post-facto correction, sought nearly two months after the prescribed last date for correction of application, was plainly an afterthought and could not be permitted.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Darshita Gupta v Consortium of National Law Universities and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 387

Click Here To Read/Download Order