The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a provisional merit list that excluded an OBC-NCL candidate solely because his certificate described him as a ‘migrant’. Holding that the prospectus for MBBS admission under the UT Chandigarh Pool contained no such bar and that selection criteria cannot be altered after the admission process has begun, the Court directed respondents to prepare a fresh merit list for vacant seats while leaving already admitted candidates undisturbed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Nitin Yadav (minor), an OBC-NCL candidate possessing an OBC certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (South), UT Chandigarh, which described him as a “migrant”, sought admission to the MBBS course in Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh under the 11 seats reserved for the OBC (NCL) category in the UT Chandigarh Pool. After submitting his application and clearing NEET (UG) 2026, the provisional revised combined merit list dated 20.08.2026 placed him at serial number 220 and marked his candidature as “OBCuMigrant certificate. Not eligible in OBC category, hence, will be considered in General Category”. He challenged this exclusion by way of a writ petition.
Key Facts
- The petitioner avers that he belongs to the Yadav caste, recognised as an OBC in Chandigarh, and that he completed his education in Chandigarh.
- He cleared the NEET (UG) 2026 examination as an OBC-NCL candidate and applied for admission against the 11 OBC-NCL seats reserved in the UT Chandigarh Pool.
- The OBC certificate (Annexure Pu1) was issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (South), UT Chandigarh, and bears the description “migrant”.
- The UT Chandigarh Administration issued a prospectus (Annexure Pu7) for admission to MBBS and other courses, vide No. 4486/ET134842/FTII(GMCH)/2023/10399 dated 15.07.2022.
- The prospectus contains eligibility clauses AT3 (general criteria) and AT7 (OBC-NCL criteria) which require: (i) fulfilment of the UT Chandigarh Pool eligibility criteria, (ii) claiming OBC-NCL status in the NEET (UG) 2026 application, and (iii) submission of an OBC-NCL certificate issued by the Tehsildar/Magistrate 1st Class/Deputy Commissioner, UT Chandigarh, bearing the seal and signature of the issuing authority.
- Clause AT7 expressly states that an OBC-NCL certificate issued by any State/UT other than UT Chandigarh shall not be accepted for the reserved seats, but it does not treat a certificate bearing the word “migrant” as invalid or as a ground for exclusion.
- On 20.08.2026 the provisional revised combined merit list (Annexure Pu10) was uploaded; the petitioner’s name appeared at Sr. No. 220 with the annotation “OBCuMigrant certificate. Not eligible in OBC category, hence, will be considered in General Category”.
- The respondents relied on Government of India instructions dated 08.04.1994 and 22.03.1977, and on Article 341 of the Constitution, to argue that OBC status is territorial and that a migrant OBC cannot claim reservation benefits in the migrated UT.
- The respondents also cited Supreme Court judgments in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Others, (1990) 3 SCC 130 and Action Committee v. Union of India and Another, (1994) 5 SCC 244 to support the proposition that OBC migrants cannot carry constitutional privileges into a migrated territory unless specifically notified by Parliament.
- The Court noted that a similar question arose in Japuji Kaur Bains v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (CWPg27499g2026), decided on 16.09.2026, wherein it was held that the rules of the game (i.e., the admission criteria) cannot be modified after the selection process has begun.
- The judgment was reserved on 17.09.2026 and pronounced on 21.09.2026.
Procedural History
- 15.07.2022: Issuance of the prospectus (Annexure Pu7) for MBBS admission under the UT Chandigarh Pool.
- Date of NEET (UG) 2026: Examination held in 2026 (exact date not specified in the judgment).
- 20.08.2026: Upload of the provisional revised combined merit list (Annexure Pu10) excluding the petitioner from the OBC-NCL category.
- 16.09.2026: Decision in Japuji Kaur Bains v. UT Chandigarh and Others (CWPg27499g2026) holding that admission criteria cannot be altered after the selection process begins.
- 17.09.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 21.09.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A writ of certiorari quashing the provisional revised combined merit list dated 20.08.2026 insofar as it denied him participation in the counselling process for the MBBS course session 2026-27 under the OBC (NCL) category.
- A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider him for admission to the said course in accordance with his merit and the eligibility conditions contained in the prospectus.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the respondents could exclude an otherwise eligible OBC-NCL candidate from the UT Chandigarh Pool’s reserved seats merely because his OBC certificate described him as a ‘migrant’, and whether the Government of India instructions dated 08.04.1994 could be read into the prospectus to impose an additional eligibility criterion after the admission process had commenced.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the prospectus (Annexure Pu7) contains no provision that treats an OBC certificate bearing the word “migrant” as invalid or as a disqualification for the reserved seats. He relied on the express language of Clause AT7, which only disqualifies certificates issued by authorities outside UT Chandigarh, and argued that the respondents were attempting to import an extraneous condition (territoriality) through the 1994 and 1977 Government of India instructions. Citing Japuji Kaur Bains v. UT Chandigarh and Others (decided 16.09.2026), he submitted that the rules of the game - i.e., the admission criteria laid down in the prospectus - cannot be altered after the selection process has begun. He further asserted that the provisional merit list, prepared after candidates had applied, qualified and were likely to be called for counselling, amounted to a retrospective alteration of the selection rules, which is impermissible.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that OBC status is inherently territorial and that a candidate who obtains an OBC certificate from another State/UT becomes a “migrant” OBC and cannot claim reservation benefits in the migrated UT. They placed reliance on the Government of India instructions dated 08.04.1994 and 22.03.1977, which, according to them, reiterate that an OBC migrating from one State/UT to another retains eligibility only in the State/UT of origin. They also invoked Article 341 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court judgments in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Others (1990) 3 SCC 130 and Action Committee v. Union of India and Another (1994) 5 SCC 244 to support the proposition that OBC migrants cannot carry constitutional privileges into a migrated territory unless specifically notified by Parliament. The respondents maintained that the prospectus must be read in conjunction with these instructions, thereby imposing a territoriality requirement that excludes migrant OBC candidates from the reserved seats.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by observing that the prospectus for admission to the MBBS course under the UT Chandigarh Pool constitutes a “declared norm” governing eligibility, scrutiny, preparation of merit and admission. Quoting from the judgment:
“An educational institution or an admitting authority, which has framed the prospectus, is as much bound by the norms laid down therein as the candidate, who seeks admission thereunder.”
It noted that the prospectus contains two relevant clauses: AT3 (general eligibility) and AT7 (OBC-NCL criteria). Clause AT7 requires the candidate to (i) fulfil the UT Chandigarh Pool eligibility criteria, (ii) claim OBC-NCL status in the NEET (UG) 2026 application, and (iii) submit an OBC-NCL certificate issued by the Tehsildar/Magistrate 1st Class/Deputy Commissioner, UT Chandigarh, bearing the seal and signature of the issuing authority. Importantly, the clause expressly disqualifies only those certificates issued by authorities outside UT Chandigarh; it does not mention the word “migrant” as a ground for exclusion.
The Court rejected the respondents’ attempt to read the 1994 and 1977 Government of India instructions into the prospectus. It held that doing so would amount to modifying the prospectus after the admission process had commenced, which is impermissible. As the judgment states:
“Instead of being clarificatory in nature as is being claimed by the respondents, these instructions introduce a new eligibility condition. The effect is that some of the candidates, like the petitioner, who are otherwise eligible to be considered for admission as per the plain reading of the prospectus, have become ineligible. Introducing such a condition after the candidates had applied, qualified and were likely to be called for counselling, would amount to altering the rules of the game after the game has begun.”
The Court relied on its own decision in Japuji Kaur Bains v. UT Chandigarh and Others (CWPg27499g2026, decided 16.09.2026), wherein it had held that the criteria for selection cannot be modified in the middle or after the process of selection has begun. It further noted that this principle aligns with the Supreme Court’s observations in Adarsh Dinkar Sontakke (minor) and Others v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Others (Law Finder Doc ID #2961508).
Consequently, the Court answered the question in the negative: the respondents cannot exclude an otherwise OBC-NCL candidate from the UT Chandigarh Pool by labelling him/her as a “migrant”. The prospectus neither contains such a bar nor restricts OBC reservation to persons of “Chandigarh origin” or “bona fide residents”. All candidates who satisfy the UT Chandigarh Pool eligibility conditions under Clauses AT3 and AT7 and have claimed OBC-NCL status in NEET (UG) 2026 must be considered in the OBC category for admission according to their merit in the examination.
The Court also clarified that the respondents remain free to prescribe admission criteria based on the Government of India instructions for future academic sessions, provided such criteria are otherwise legally valid, but they cannot impose them retrospectively for the session 2026-27.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that the provisional revised combined merit list dated 20.08.2026 is quashed insofar as the petitioner’s OBC-NCL category is concerned. It directed the respondents to prepare a fresh merit list of OBC-NCL candidates for the vacant seats in the MBBS course under the UT Chandigarh Pool, strictly in accordance with the eligibility conditions contained in the prospectus (Annexure Pu7), particularly Clauses AT3 and AT7, and to complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible. The Court made it clear that admissions already effected against the OBC-NCL seats shall not be disturbed. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prospectus Governs Admission Criteria
The prospectus is the sole source of eligibility criteria for admission under the UT Chandigarh Pool. Any additional condition not expressly contained therein cannot be imported, even if derived from executive instructions or statutory provisions. Practitioners must scrutinise the prospectus for express disqualifying provisions before asserting that a candidate is ineligible.
No Retrospective Alteration of Selection Rules
Once the admission process has commenced - i.e., after candidates have submitted applications, qualified in the entrance examination and are likely to be called for counselling - the governing criteria cannot be changed. This principle, affirmed in Japuji Kaur Bains and reinforced by the present judgment, protects legitimate expectations of candidates and prevents arbitrary exclusion after reliance has been placed on the published norms.
Territoriality Argument Rejected for OBC Reservations
The judgment makes clear that an OBC certificate issued by the home State/UT retains its validity for reservation purposes in the host UT, provided the certificate is issued by the competent authority of that host UT. The mere description of the candidate as a “migrant” does not, by itself, defeat the claim to reservation. Arguments based on territoriality must be rooted in express provisions of the prospectus or statute; they cannot be inferred from general executive instructions.
- Verify whether the prospectus or statutory scheme expressly bars migrants from availing reservation.
- Challenge any exclusion based on extraneous conditions introduced after the admission process has begun.
- Rely on the principle that the admitting authority is bound by the norms it has set in the prospectus.
- Remember that the judgment does not preclude the State from prescribing new criteria for future sessions, provided they are lawful.
