Candidates withdrawing from allotted seats remain eligible for stray vacancy rounds if no admission was secured.

The petitioners, graduates in Ayurveda, participated in the All India Post Graduate Ayurveda Entrance Test 2019 for admission to the 2019-20 session at Ch. Brahm Prakash Ayurveda Charak Sansthan, an affiliate of Respondent No. 1/GGSIPU.

Petitioner Pooja secured rank 1018 (UR), and Neha Sethi secured rank 1892 (UR) and 809 (OBC).

After two rounds of counseling, a "stray vacancy round" was announced via notice dated 25.10.2019.

The petitioners challenged the admission of Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7 in this stray round, alleging that these respondents were ineligible because they had been allotted seats in the first round of counseling.

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to cancel those admissions and secure their own admission to the course.

The matter was decided in 2026, approximately five years after the relevant academic session.

1. Whether the private respondents were ineligible for the stray vacancy round under the terms of the notice dated 25.10.2019 because they were previously allotted seats.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to admission in a subsequent academic year (2026-2027) based on the 2019-2020 entrance examination under the "rarest of rare" doctrine.

The court primarily applied the principles governing medical admissions as established in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P. (2020) 17 SCC 465, which permits courts to grant admission in subsequent years only in "exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases" where a meritorious candidate was illegally denied admission through no fault of their own.

It also applied the University’s admission guidelines, specifically Clause 15 of the notice dated 07.09.2019 regarding the withdrawal of admission.

The eligibility criteria for stray rounds defined in the notice dated 25.10.2019 and related FAQs.

The court analyzed the eligibility criteria for the stray vacancy round and determined that the restriction applied only to candidates who were "admitted" and "holding" a seat.

Since Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 had formally withdrawn their admissions following the first round of counseling (as permitted by the 07.09.2019 notice) and had submitted undertakings, they were not "holding" seats and thus remained eligible for the stray round.

The court found the petitioners' reliance on S. Krishna Sradha misplaced for two reasons: first, the petitioners were not "more meritorious" than the private respondents, as the latter secured higher ranks.

The lapse of more than five years since the 2019-20 session made the request for admission in 2026-27 based on old exam results legally impermissible.

It held that relief under the "rarest of rare" doctrine for subsequent-year admission cannot be granted when the petitioners are less meritorious than those admitted and when an excessive period (five years) has transpired since the original examination.

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petitions.