Withdrawal of an allotted seat preserves eligibility for participation in subsequent stray vacancy rounds.

The petitioners, BAMS graduates, participated in the All India Post Graduate Ayurveda Entrance Test 2019 for the 2019-20 session

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

After two rounds of counseling, a third "mop-up" or stray vacancy round was announced via notice dated 25.10.2019

The petitioners challenged the admission of private respondents (Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7) in this round, alleging they were ineligible under the notice because they had been allotted seats in previous rounds

The petitioners sought a mandamus for their own admission and the cancellation of the respondents' seats, approximately five years after the initial entrance exam

1. Whether the private respondents were ineligible for the stray vacancy round under the terms of the notice dated 25.10.2019 because of prior seat allotments

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to admission in the current session (2026-27) based on a 2019 examination under the doctrine of "rarest of rare" cases

The court primarily interpreted the admission regulations of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), specifically Clause 15 of the notice dated 07.09.2019 regarding withdrawal of admission

FAQ Nos. 45 and 50 regarding eligibility for stray rounds

The principles established in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P. (2020) 17 SCC 465, which permits courts to grant admission in subsequent academic years only in "rarest of rare" cases where a meritorious candidate is illegally denied admission through no fault of their own and has approached the court expeditiously

The court found that the ineligibility criteria specified in the notice dated 25.10.2019 applied only to candidates who had "secured" or "joined" an admission

It noted that the private respondents had exercised their right to withdraw from their initial allotments after the first round of counseling and had filed undertakings to that effect, thereby remaining eligible for the stray round

Regarding the petitioners' claim for admission, the court observed that the petitioners were less meritorious than the respondents, as the latter held higher ranks

The court held that the ratio in S. Krishna Sradha was inapplicable because a lapse of over five years (from the 2019 exam to the 2026-27 session) is too significant to permit admission, and such relief cannot be granted as a matter of course

It held that the private respondents were validly admitted as they had legally withdrawn their previous seats and were not "admitted" candidates at the time of the stray round

The court further held that the petitioners were not entitled to relief as they lacked superior merit and the significant time lapse of five years precluded any direction for admission in the current session