ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA v. Sabina Ekka

: Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General : Ms. Akanksha Singh holding brief of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Chief Justice , Judge 3 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20 .0 2 .2026 1 Heard Mr. Rajat Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents, Ms. Akanksha Singh holding brief of Mr. Avinash Singh, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5/Vyapam and Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for respondent No.6/ Indian Nursing Council 2 By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were writ petitioners in the WPC No.118 of 2026, have challenged the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in the said petition, by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3 Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioners, who are the students aspiring their carrier in the field of nursing have filed WPC No. 118 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the learned Single Judge of this Court with a prayer that last date fixed for admission for the first year of Nursing Course on 31.12.2025 may be extended to the convenience to the petitioners on the ground that since the percentage for getting admission has been reduced on 4

29.12.2025 only, therefore, they prayed for extending the cut off date i.e. on 31.12.2025, which has already been expired. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13.01.2026. Hence, this appeal. 4 Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge erred in mechanically applying the percentile-based cut-off and refusing extension of counselling, thereby defeating the very object of the admission process, which is to ensure that available seats, particularly those meant for reserved category candidates, are filled and not left vacant. He further argued that the subsequent decision of the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences reducing the NEET PG– 2025 qualifying percentile to 0% for SC/ST/OBC candidates reflects a clear policy shift toward substantial relaxation in public interest. Once such relaxation has been considered appropriate at the national level for postgraduate medical courses, denial of similar or lesser relaxation for B.Sc. Nursing admissions, despite admitted vacant seats, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He also submitted that the extension of admission timelines by the Government of Maharashtra further demonstrates that extension beyond the cut-off date is legally permissible and administratively feasible. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to exercise equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 in favour of students belonging to reserved categories whose educational careers are at stake. The applicable regulatory 5 framework itself contemplates Regular and Irregular Student Batches, thereby accommodating delayed admissions without disruption of the academic calendar, rendering the apprehension of schedule disturbance unfounded. He contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Era Lucknow Medical College & Hospital v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3888, permitted extension of counselling to ensure that professional seats do not go waste, emphasizing public interest and transparency. The impugned order, by adopting a narrow and technical approach and ignoring subsequent developments and binding principles, has resulted in grave injustice and warrants interference. 5 On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submission and would submit that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition as the last date for admission i.e. 31.12.2025 was fixed in accordance with the prescribed academic schedule and regulatory framework, and once the cut-off date expired, no direction could have been issued to extend the same. The law is well settled that admission schedules in professional courses must be strictly adhered to and cannot be altered by judicial orders, except in exceptional circumstances, as such interference would disturb the academic calendar and create uncertainty in the admission process. 6 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 6 impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7 The undisputed position is that the last date for admission to the first year B.Sc. Nursing Course was fixed as 31.12.2025 in terms of the notified academic schedule. The appellants approached the learned Single Judge seeking extension of the said cut-off date on the ground that the qualifying percentile was reduced on

29.12.2025, leaving insufficient time to secure admission. The learned Single Judge declined to grant the relief, and we find no infirmity in the said view. 8 It is well settled that the admission schedule for professional courses must be adhered to strictly and cannot ordinarily be altered by judicial intervention. The cut-off date is fixed to maintain certainty, uniformity and discipline in the academic calendar. Once the prescribed date has expired, issuance of directions to reopen or extend the counselling process would lead to administrative uncertainty and may adversely affect the academic session. The power under Article 226, though wide, is to be exercised in accordance with settled principles and not in a manner that disturbs the statutory framework governing admissions. 9 The reliance placed by the appellants on the reduction of percentile by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences in relation to NEET PG–2025 does not advance their case, as the said decision pertains to a distinct course governed by a separate regulatory regime. No automatic parity can be claimed for B.Sc. Nursing admissions on that basis. Likewise, 7 extension of timelines by another State Government cannot create an enforceable right in favour of the appellants in the absence of a similar policy decision by the competent authority in the present case. 10 We also find that the regulatory framework governing the nursing course prescribes a structured academic calendar. The categorization into Regular and Irregular Batches cannot be construed as conferring an unrestricted power to grant admissions beyond the notified deadline. The appellants participated in the admission process with full knowledge of the stipulated schedule and cannot, after expiry of the cut-off date, seek extension as a matter of right. 11 The learned Single Judge has exercised discretion judiciously and in consonance with settled principles of law. We find no arbitrariness, illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in intra-court appeal. 12 Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra