Professional admission schedules must be strictly adhered to and cannot be extended by judicial intervention.

The appellants sought admission to the first-year B.Sc. Nursing Course for the academic session 2025-26.

The notified academic schedule fixed 31.12.2025 as the last date for admission.

On 29.12.2025, the qualifying percentile was reduced, which the appellants claimed left them with insufficient time to complete admission formalities.

They filed a writ petition (WPC No. 116 of 2026) seeking an extension of the cut-off date, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on 14.01.2026.

The appellants challenged this dismissal via the present intra-court appeal, citing similar extensions granted in other states and for different courses like NEET PG-2025.

1. Whether the court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to extend a strictly notified cut-off date for professional course admissions due to a late reduction in qualifying percentiles.

2. Whether the appellants could claim parity with the admission timelines of distinct professional courses (NEET PG) or policy decisions of other State Governments.

The Court relied on the established principle that admission schedules for professional courses must be strictly adhered to and cannot ordinarily be altered through judicial intervention.

It applied the doctrine that cut-off dates are essential to maintain certainty, uniformity, and discipline in the academic calendar.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that regulatory frameworks for different professional courses (e.g., Nursing vs. Medical PG) are distinct, and a decision in one does not create an enforceable right of parity in another.

The Court exercised its powers under Article 226 in accordance with these settled principles, ensuring the statutory framework governing admissions was not disturbed.

The Court noted that the appellants participated in the admission process with full knowledge of the stipulated schedule.

It held that extending the deadline after its expiry would cause administrative uncertainty and adversely affect the academic session.

The Court rejected the reliance on NEET PG-2025 percentile reductions, stating that such decisions pertain to a separate regulatory regime and do not advance the appellants' case for B.Sc. Nursing.

Similarly, the Court found that extension policies in other states did not bind the competent authorities in Chhattisgarh.

Following the precedent set in Sabina Ekka & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WA No. 169 of 2026), the Court concluded that the structured academic calendar and the categorization of "Regular" and "Irregular" batches did not confer an unrestricted power to grant admissions beyond the deadline.

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's order, finding no arbitrariness, illegality, or perversity in the decision to decline the extension of the admission process.

No order as to costs was made.