Prospectus Conditions Cannot Be Altered Mid-Stream: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Exclusion Of 'Migrant' SC Candidates From MBBS Admission

"An educational institution cannot introduce an additional eligibility condition, which does not find place in the prospectus. It has been clarified that an eligibility condition introduced during or after the commencement of the selection process, cannot retrospectively govern the candidates, who participated on the basis of the originally notified norms." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 16, 2026, held that admitting authorities cannot alter the eligibility criteria for professional courses after the commencement of the admission process by incorporating extrinsic instructions.

A division bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur observed that the prospectus constitutes the "rules of the game," which bind both the institution and the candidates, stating, "An educational institute 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."

The petitioners, who had cleared the NEET (UG) 2026 examination, challenged the provisional revised combined merit list which relegated them from the Scheduled Caste (SC) category to the General category. The respondents had labeled the petitioners as "SC-Migrant" based on Government of India instructions dated February 22, 2018, contending that individuals who migrated to the Union Territory of Chandigarh could not claim reserved seat benefits unless they originated from the UT. The petitioners argued that they possessed the requisite certificates issued by the competent authority in Chandigarh and that the prospectus did not stipulate a "non-migrant" status or "Chandigarh origin" as a prerequisite for SC reservation.

Court Rejects Mid-Selection Policy Shift

The primary question before the court was whether the respondents could impose additional eligibility criteria after the commencement of the admission process to distinguish between "SC-bona fide resident" and "SC-migrant," when such a distinction was absent from the prospectus. The court also examined whether external executive instructions could override the specific terms of the prospectus notified for the 2026-27 MBBS admission cycle.

Prospectus Has The Force Of Law

The bench reiterated the settled legal position that a prospectus possesses the force of law and that neither the institution nor the candidates can depart from its notified conditions once the selection process has begun. Citing a long line of precedents including Amandeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab and Indu Gupta v. Director, Sports Punjab, the court emphasized that candidates must know the rules of selection before entering the competition.

Court Highlights The Finality Of Notified Norms

The court analyzed Clauses A-3 and A-4 of the prospectus, noting that they merely required the production of a valid SC certificate issued by the designated Chandigarh authorities. The bench observed that the prospectus contained no requirement for proof of residence prior to November 1, 1966, nor did it bar candidates classified as "migrants" by other administrative definitions.

No Retrospective Application Of New Criteria

The judges noted that incorporating external instructions from 2018 into the current prospectus would effectively modify the terms of eligibility, which is legally impermissible during an ongoing admission cycle. The bench clarified that while such criteria might be valid for future sessions, they cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate the candidatures of those who applied under the originally notified norms.

"The rules of the game, meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection, cannot be altered in the middle or after the process of selection has begun."

Consequently, the court quashed the revised provisional merit list and directed the respondents to prepare a fresh merit list of SC candidates based strictly on the conditions stipulated in the prospectus. The authorities were ordered to complete this exercise within ten days. The judgment explicitly provides that the respondents are not precluded from prescribing new criteria based on government instructions for the next academic session, provided they are otherwise legally valid.

Date of Decision: 16 September 2026