JUDGMENT :- Petitioner is a candidate for admission to M.D.S. Post Graduate Course in Dental Science for the year 1995-96. Petitioner's rank number was 26. As per the prospectus Ext. P 1, 24 seats were made available for admission to Dental College. Petitioner's choice for the admission is M.D.S. Oral Pathology and Micro Pathology for which two seats were allocated. Petitioner could not come within the rank list for admission to the course in the year 1995. After coming to know that vacancies have arisen subsequently, the petitioner filed a representation dated 24-6-1996 before the Director of Medical Education requesting admission to the course based on the entrance examination of 1995. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the Government in their letter dated 9-12-1996. The Original Petition is filed against this order and for a direction to consider her request for admission in the 1995 batch. 2. The admission to the Post Graduate Course in Dental College is governed by the prospectus Ext. P 1. As per the Clause 12 of the said prospectus, the validity of the select and wait list will be till the publication of the result of the entrance examination of the coming year. As far as 1995-96 selection is concerned, the petitioner was not selected and she has no grievance about her non-selection in the year 1995. However, her case is that since some of the candidates have left after the entrance examination of 1996, in the resultant vacancy she may be considered. As per the prospectus, there is no valid list after the publication of 1996 entrance examination for considering the case of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Joint Director by notice dated 7-12-1996 called for interview for certain vacant seats of the 1995 batch. But the petitioner's choice of the course, namely, M.D.S. in Oral Pathology and Micro Pathology was not included as one of the items available for interview. Had the said course was included, the petitioner also would have appeared for interview and would have been considered for selection. In reply to the said specific contention, learned Government Pleader pointed out that the notification calling for the interview dated 7-12-1996 by the Joint Director was found to be not in order. He has set out the circumstances under which, in the case of one candidate Dr. In reply to the said specific contention, learned Government Pleader pointed out that the notification calling for the interview dated 7-12-1996 by the Joint Director was found to be not in order. He has set out the circumstances under which, in the case of one candidate Dr. Jayasree this court in O.P. 14238/96 considering the peculiar and special circumstances of the case, namely, that she was prevented from attending the interview on 23-7-1996 because the erratum was not published in the newspaper, she was directed to be interviewed. Taking advantage of such direction given in the case of one candidate granting extention for the validity of the list of 1995, the Joint Director suo motu called for the interview for the available vacancies of the year 1995. The Government considered this as improper and cancelled the selection made in pursuance to the interview held on 16-12-1996 in reference to all the candidates. Learned Government Pleader also pointed out that no candidate was admitted on the strength of Ext. P6. He has pointed out that the recommendation given by the Principal of the Medical College. Thiruvananthapuram was declined by the 3rd respondent in view of the Government decision. 4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner who seeks for the validation of 1995 list cannot be granted in the light of the specific clause of the prospectus (Clause 12). Even if the students of 1995 batch leaves the course in the middle of the year 1996 or subsequently, that cannot be treated as a vacancy of the year 1995 so as to claim admission for the 1995 batch. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the vacancy that has subsequently arisen she is entitled to be considered, therefore, cannot be sustained. In this context learned counsel referred to the decision of Allahabad High Court in Lal Chandra v. Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, A1R 1991 All 183. The facts of the case is different in the sense the admission was sought for during the currency of the vacancy. Besides, the specific rule as pointed out in Clause 12 of the prospectus was not available in the Allahabad case. No Court can be asked to give a direction contrary to a rule in the prospectus unless that rule is held to be declared as invalid. Besides, the specific rule as pointed out in Clause 12 of the prospectus was not available in the Allahabad case. No Court can be asked to give a direction contrary to a rule in the prospectus unless that rule is held to be declared as invalid. Learned counsel further referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay v. G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur, AIR 1989 SC 775. In this case also, the facts are different in the sense the admission was sought for 1988-90 session which was the current session and no steps were taken for filling up of those vacancies and the authorities in that case represented that the advertisement will be published for the admission in 1989-91 session. That means, the selection was not completed and the admission for the subsequent period has not been made. Under those circumstances, the Supreme Court directed them to consider the case of the petitioner therein. But in this case, admission for 1995-96 was over and admission for 1996-97 was also complete after the entrance examination. Any vacancy arising in the 2nd year consequent on a student leaving the course in the midway cannot be treated as a vacancy from inception. This will lead to anomalous situation. The Supreme Court in similar circumstances in State of U. P. v. Anupam Gupta AIR 1992 SC 932 : (1992 AIR SCW 746) has held that admission in the midstream is not permissible especially in case of post graduate studies. In the words of Supreme Court at page 754 (of AIR SCW) : "To maintain excellence the P.G. Medical courses in medical colleges have to be commenced on schedule and to be completed within the schedule, so that the students would have full opportunity to study full course to meet their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in the midstream would disturb the courses and also works a handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Therefore the vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and the direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats cannot be sustained." The direction of the High Court to admit the candidates for the vacant seats was held to be not correct. Hence the Government has taken a decision not to validate the lapsed seats, is valid and cannot be assailed. In the above circumstances. Hence the Government has taken a decision not to validate the lapsed seats, is valid and cannot be assailed. In the above circumstances. I do not find any grounds for issue of a direction for extending the validity of the rank list, 1995 enabling the petitioner to gain admission. Hence the original Petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.