An unchallenged prospectus clause bars candidates who fail to join stray-round seats from next-year counselling.

The appellant applied for MBBS/BDS admission for 2025–2026 under both the Government and Management Quotas.

After being allotted an MBBS seat under the Management Quota in the stray vacancy round, she did not join.

The Selection Committee refused her request to revoke the resulting debarment and permit her to participate in the 2026–2027 counselling, relying on the prospectus.

Her writ petition was dismissed, and she appealed.

Whether the appellant could participate in the subsequent year’s counselling despite failing to join the MBBS seat allotted to her in the stray vacancy round.

Whether the authorities’ refusal to revoke the debarment could be disturbed when the appellant had not challenged the relevant prospectus clause.

Clauses 1(n) and 17(V)(f) of the 2025–2026 prospectus provided that candidates would receive no direct communication and must monitor the website, and that a candidate allotted a seat in the stray vacancy round who failed to join or discontinued the course would be barred from Tamil Nadu UG Medical Counselling for the subsequent academic year.

The Court treated the prospectus as having the force of law and held that admissions must adhere to its terms.

Relying on The State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Arulvel, which referred to Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur, the Court stated that relief inconsistent with an unchallenged prospectus clause cannot be granted.

It distinguished Asha v. P.T.B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew on their facts, and noted that relief in T. Dhanya v. State of Tamil Nadu and Shilpa Suresh S. v. State of Tamil Nadu was expressly not to be treated as precedent.

The appellant’s applications under both quotas and her allotment under the Management Quota were established; she admittedly failed to join the allotted seat.

The Court held that Clause 17(V)(f) therefore applied and barred her participation in the next academic year.

The absence of individual communication did not displace Clause 1(n), which required candidates to monitor the website.

Because the appellant had not challenged the debarment clause, and the prospectus governed the admission process, the authorities were entitled to apply it.

The precedents relied on by the appellant did not justify a different result.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.