Judgment : A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J. - 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought direction against the respondents to allow her to participate in the admission process commenced on the basis of prospectus, Annexure P-3. The case of the petitioner is that she had appeared in the NEET examination and secured 466th rank. On the basis of that rank, the petitioner should be considered for the seat notified in the prospectus. However, for some unknown reason, the name of the petitioner was not found in the list notified subsequently, although the petitioner was called for first round of counselling on the earlier occasion. According to the respondents, as per the prospectus, the petitioner is covered under category (IV) specified as "other areas of the State (excluding the above and below)". As a result, the mandatory service period specified for that category was four years. The petitioner does not possess that experience and hence has been excluded from consideration. . 3. The petitioner on the other hand has relied on the following factual position stated in the petition at pages 7 and 8: “PHC PUKHRI (3 YEARS AREA) 4.1.2010 – 3.1.2012 (2 YEARS) @ 33.33%/YEAR = 66.66% 4.1.2012 – 21.1.2012 – (18 DAYS) @ 33.33% = 1.61% PHC BAGLI (4 YEAR AREA) 23.1.2012-22.1.2013-(1 YEAR) @ 25% = 25% 23.1.2013-22.5.2013-(4 MONTHS) @ 25% = 8.33% Total service = 101.61%.” According to the petitioner, in view of Clause (iii) of the prospectus, the Medical Officer, who has served in more than one of the category of area, the mandatory service period is required to be calculated on pro-rata basis and keeping in mind the service rendered by the petitioner during the relevant period, referred to above, the petitioner had put in total service of 101.61%. In addition, the petitioner has placed reliance on the notification issued on 2nd April, 2013, which predicates that the person who has served in category II area, the mandatory service period should be three years. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has completed three years of mandatory service period on the above calculation. 4. This argument, though attractive at the first blush, deserves to be stated to be rejected. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has completed three years of mandatory service period on the above calculation. 4. This argument, though attractive at the first blush, deserves to be stated to be rejected. We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned Advocate General that the admission process must be governed on the basis of the terms and conditions prescribed in the prospectus and not the subsequent notification dated 2nd April, 2013, Annexure P-4. It is not in dispute that the said notification came into being after the admission process had already commenced; and the petitioner participated on the basis of the conditions specified in the prospectus without any demur. Going by the condition in the said prospectus, the petitioner is obviously not eligible for being considered, as she has not completed mandatory service period of four years. Counsel for petitioner, however, placed reliance on the note at the end of the prospectus, which mentions that any change/amendment in the Rules and Regulations made by the Government/University/College, as the case may be, shall be binding on the student. This note cannot be the basis to create right in favour of the petitioner to continue in the admission process, even though, she was not eligible as per the condition specified in the prospectus. Further, the reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner on Clause (iii) of the prospectus and analogous provision appearing in the notification dated 2nd April, 2013, Clause 1.5 is inapplicable to the fact situation of the present case as it is noticed that the petitioner did not work in more than one category area during the relevant period, but the service rendered by her was in one category area. The fact that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination and also in the first counselling round, will not create any right in her favour. Similarly, the subsequent change brought about vide notification dated 2nd April, 2013 cannot enure to the petitioner. If the petitioner's case was to be tested on the basis of the said notification, it is not clear from the record as to how many similarly placed persons would have become eligible to apply even though the prospectus specifies the qualifying mandatory service period to be four years in other areas of the State. 5. In the circumstances, we find no merits in this petition. 5. In the circumstances, we find no merits in this petition. The same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Same is dismissed