[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Parvati Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12595-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 228 of 2026
1 - Parvati Yadav D/o Rambharosh Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o
Village Khhairri, Tehsil Bhaiyathan, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Sheetal Singh Sheetal Singh Aged About 18 Years R/o Village
Sonpur, P.O. Banja, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 497231.
3 - Geetanjali Singh D/o Nirmal Singh Aged About 18 Years R/o Village
Chukhandand, Tehsil Lakhanpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Sumati Bai D/o Vikul Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Pasta,
Tehsil Ramanujnagar, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Manisha D/o Tibhu Singh Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Bharda,
Tehsil And Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Anita D/o Santosh Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Jillibandh, P.O.
Tambandh, Tehsil Khandgava, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Reema Lakra D/o Kalinder Lakra Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No.
03, Village Rata Silli, P.O. Kusmi, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj,
Chhattisgarh.
8 - Laxmi D/o Rajesh Chaudhari Aged About 18 Years R/o Ghutrpara,
Near Paani Tanki, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
9 - Sanju Ravi D/o Dhaneswar Ravi Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No.
7, Shanti Nagar, Shivnandanpur, P.S. Bishrampur, Distt. Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
10 - Savita Lakra D/o Anuklal Lakra Aged About 22 Years R/o
Chandarpur, Bhaiyathan, P.O. Salka, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
11 - Nupur Vishwakarma D/o Praveen Vishwakarma Aged About 18
Years R/o Village Nawapara, Tehsil And Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.
Digitally signed ... Appellants
by ANURADHA
ANURADHA
TIWARI
Date:
versus
TIWARI 2026.03.18
10:34:23
+0530
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary To The Govt. of
Chhattisgarh, Department of Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, P.S. Rakhi, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Commissioner Directorate of Medical Education, Swasthya
Bhawan, North Block, Second Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2
3 - The Director Directorate of Medical Education, Swasthya Bhawan,
North Block, Second Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Chairman Counselling Committee, Directorate of Medical
Education, Swasthya Bhawan, North Block, Second Floor, Nawa
Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Controller of
Examination, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Section 19, Nawa Raipur,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Indian Nursing Council Through Its, Secretary, Address 8th Floor,
NBCC Centre, Plot No. 2, Community Center Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi
110020.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Aditya Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy
Advocate General
For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor
General
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
17.03.2026
1 Heard Mr. Aditya Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants as
well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General,
appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 4, Mr. Avinash Singh,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Mr. Ramakant
Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondent
No.7.
2 The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated
21.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC
No.259/2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants / writ
petitioner was dismissed.
3 Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue
involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by
this Court vide judgment dated 20.02.2026 in Writ Appeal No.169/2026,
whereby this Court has held as under:-
"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,
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."
They further submitted that since the facts and issue
involved in the present case is identical to that of Writ Appeal
No.169/2026, this appeal may also be disposed off in the same
terms.
4 Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it
is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is
identical to Writ Appeal No.169/2026, this Court deems it
appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in
Writ Appeal No.169/2026.
5 Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the
order dated 20.02.2026 passed in Writ Appeal No.169/2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
