(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13162 of 2026 dated 15.04.2026.)

G. Arul Murugan, J.

1. The intra-Court appeal assails the order dated 15.04.2026 in W.P.No.13162 of 2026, whereby the challenge made to the order of the second respondent dated 23.12.2025, refusing to revoke the debarment and allow the appellant to participate in future counselling came to be rejected by the writ Court.

2.1. The relevant facts are that the appellant, upon completing her Senior School Examination, applied for MBBS & BDS courses for the academic year 2025-2026 under the Government Quota. The appellant had secured 220 marks in the NEET examination. She claimed that she was wrongly allotted a seat under the Management Quota, which was not properly communicated to her and, therefore, she was not able to join the course allotted in the stray vacancy round.

                   2.2. As such, she was barred to participate in Tamil Nadu UG-Medical Counselling for the academic year 2025-2026. In this regard, the appellant made a representation on 23.12.2025 requesting to revoke the debarment and allow to participate either under Management Quota or Government Quota in the subsequent rounds of counselling.

                   2.3. The claim came to be rejected by the order of the second respondent dated 23.12.2025, on the ground that as per the prospectus, no communication will be directly sent to the candidates and it is for the candidates to follow the website and join the allotted college and once, after allotment, the student fails to join the course, the student concerned will be debarred from participating in the subsequent counselling for MBBS & BDS seats.

                   2.4. The appellant assailed the order of rejection in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 15.04.2026, observing that as per the prospectus, the appellant ought to have been vigilant and joined the course when she was allotted a seat under the Management Quota and further, since there is an express provision under the prospectus prohibiting the allotted candidates who failed to join the course from participating in the subsequent academic year, held that the impugned order, having been passed in consonance with the prospectus, is perfectly legal and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant student has preferred this appeal.

3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant, coming from a rural, poor background, even though she had only applied under the Government Quota, had mistakenly entered the Management Quota also and considering her age and merits, the mistake committed could be condoned and the appellant could be allowed to participate in the present year's counselling.

                   3.2. Learned counsel further submitted that though the prospectus in fact contains a clause of debarment for the subsequent year, it is not a hard-and-fast rule and this Court can always condone the lapse and, by considering the future prospects of a young student who is meritorious, can allow the student to participate in the counselling.

                   3.3. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha vs. PT.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others [(2012)7 SCC 389].

4.1. Countering the submissions, learned Government Advocate by producing separate applications filed by the appellant both under the Management as well as the Government Quota, submitted that the appellant, having applied under both the streams, ought to have been vigilant as no communications will be individually sent, as clearly stated in the prospectus and they have to follow from the web portal.

                   4.2. He further submitted that the appellant had participated in the counselling even under the Management Quota and having been allotted an MBBS seat under the Management Quota, the appellant failed to join the course. In such circumstances, as per the prospectus, which has the force of law, the request of the appellant seeking to revoke the debarment was rightly rejected and the learned Single Judge, by considering the materials, dismissed the writ petition, which needs no interference.

5. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials available on record.

6. The appellant, having completed the Senior School Examination, had applied for MBBS & BDS Course in the academic year 2025-2026, both under the Management Quota and the Government Quota. The application filed by the appellant for the MBBS & BDS courses under the Management Quota was registered under application No.25UG922304 and the application under the Government Quota was registered under application No.25UG829838.

7. The appellant had secured 220 marks in the NEET examination. As per the marks secured by the appellant, she was allotted MBBS course under the Management Quota as per the application filed. Even though MBBS seat was allotted under the Management Quota, the appellant admittedly failed to join the course as per the allotment.

8. When the appellant contends that no proper communication was issued in respect of her allotment, it is contended by the respondents that, in fact, the appellant, having filed separate application under the management quota, had even participated in the counselling.

9. Be that as it may, the appellant had applied for the MBBS & BDS courses for the academic year 2025-2026, both under the Management Quota and the Government Quota, as per the prospectus issued for admission to the MBBS & BDS courses 2025-2026 session. Even after the allotment of the MBBS seat in favour of the appellant, since she did not join the course, the request made by her to revoke the debarment and allow her to participate in the counselling for the 2026-2027 session came to be rejected.

10. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Clauses 1(n) and 17(V)(f) of the prospectus, which reads as follows:

                   “n. No communication will be directly sent to the Candidate(s). They are advised to be in touch with the website on regular basis for any updates.”

                   “17. ROUNDS OF ONLINE COUNSELLING:

                   V. STRAY ROUND OF COUNSELLING:

                   f. Allotted candidates during Stray vacancy Round, if they fail to join or discontinue the course, they will have to forfeit the Security Deposit and Tuition Fee in addition to payment of Discontinuation Fee. They also will not be able to participate in Tamil Nadu UG Medical Counselling for subsequent one academic year.”

11. A bare perusal of the aforesaid clauses makes it clear that no communication will be directly sent to the candidates and that the candidates have to follow the website for updates. Further, if the candidates allotted a course during the stray vacancy round fail to join or discontinue the course, they will have to forfeit the security deposit and tuition fee, in addition to the payment of a discontinuation fee, and they will also not be able to participate in the Tamil Nadu UG Medical Counselling for the subsequent academic year.

12. Admittedly, the appellant, having applied for the MBBS & BDS courses for 2025-2026 session and having been allotted a seat in the said course under the Management Quota, failed to join. Once a candidate is allotted the course and fails to join, Clause 17(V)(f) of the prospectus clearly debars such a candidate from participating in the counselling for the subsequent academic year. The clause mainly seeks to discourage the candidates who applied for allotment of the course in the stray vacancy round from failing to join the course. The reason being that since there is a cut-off date for admission to MBBS & BDS courses, if the candidate who gets an allotment in the stray vacancy round fails to join the course, the seat would go waste, which an otherwise eligible candidate would have secured.

13. When the specific Clause 17(V)(f) of the prospectus bars a candidate, who failed to join the course allotted during the stray vacancy round, from participating in counselling for subsequent one academic year, the authorities, relying on the aforesaid clauses, rightly rejected the claim of the appellant.

14. The writ petition filed challenging the order of rejection which was passed in view of the debarment clause without any challenge to the clause in the prospectus, cannot be sustained. The prospectus having the force of law, any admission to the course ought to be strictly in adherence to the clauses contained in the prospectus. Any deviation from the prospectus will impact the entire procedure and render it whimsical and arbitrary.

15. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a decision of this Court in The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department vs. G.Arulvel (W.A.No.1663 of 2026 decided on 20.08.2026), wherein, after referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur [(2014) 10 SCC 521], it was held that in the absence of a challenge to the prospectus which makes the candidate ineligible to apply, the candidate would not be entitled to relief. The relevant portion from the said decision reads as under:

                   “15. Even as per the admission of the respondent himself, he was not allowed to apply in the first round of counseling and he did not make any application for Round-2 counselling. If the respondent was aggrieved by these clauses in the prospectus, it was for the respondent to challenge the clauses which prevented him from applying to the Super Speciality Course as an in-service candidate. In the absence of such a challenge, the interpretation adopted by the learned single Judge and the consequential direction to the appellants to extend similar benefits to the respondent and all other similarly placed candidates who had neither applied nor approached the Court, cannot be sustained. Selection and admission to the Super Speciality Course cannot be made in breach of the very prospectus issued and the appellants are strictly governed by the prospectus issued for the course.”

16. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable from the facts of the present case, as there when the prospectus contemplated that the qualified candidate had to appear before the Counselling Board in person, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, noting that there was no dispute that the candidate was present at the place on the date of counselling and that the dispute was related to her absence at a particular time when her name was called and finding that there was no fault attributable to the candidate, held that the appellant therein could not be arbitrarily denied the relief and, accordingly, granted relief to the candidate.

17. However, in the instant case, admittedly, the appellant had applied under both the Management and Government Quotas and the appellant was allotted a seat under the Management Quota and she having failed to join the course, the prospectus clearly bars the appellant from participating in the counselling in the subsequent academic year, which has not even been put to challenge.

18. In the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Charles K. Skaria and Others vs. Dr.C.Mathew and Others [(1980) 2 SCC 752], the prospectus contemplated that an application to the postgraduate course must be accompanied by all certificates, inter alia, the diploma certificate, for availing weightage marks. However, due to inability to declare the results for one of the medical Colleges before the last date of application, the State themselves had issued a communication clarifying that the Selection Committee can allow the applications from the students of that college to avail weightage marks, based on which the candidates got selected and joined the course. However, when the same was interfered with, the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the relevant clause in the Prospectus was only directory in nature, where the State had clarified the position and the candidates had also joined the course, allowed the candidates to complete the course.

19. Further, in the decision in T. Dhanya vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others [WP (Civil) No. 1123 of 2025 dated 05.12.2025] and Shilpa Suresh. S vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others. [SLP (Civil) No. 33657 of 2025 dated 05.12.2025], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while granting relief to the candidates, specifically directed that the order shall not be treated as a precedent.

20. As such, the cases relied on by the appellant do not apply to the facts of the present case at all. In view of the above deliberations, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings arrived at by the learned single Judge warranting interference.

21. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.