Professional course admission schedules must be strictly followed and cannot be extended by judicial intervention.

The eleven appellants, aspiring students for the B.Sc. Nursing course, challenged the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which dismissed their writ petition.

The appellants sought an extension of the admission cut-off date, which had been fixed as 31.12.2025.

They argued that because the qualifying percentile for admission was reduced only on 29.12.2025, they were left with insufficient time to secure admissions before the deadline.

The appellants approached the Division Bench via an intra-court appeal, contending that the issues were identical to those previously raised in Writ Appeal No. 169/2026.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to extend or reopen the notified cut-off date for professional course admissions after the expiry of the academic schedule.

2. Whether a late reduction in qualifying percentiles or admission extensions granted by other states creates a legal right for candidates to demand an extension of the admission deadline.

The Court applied the principle of strict adherence to academic schedules, holding that admission deadlines for professional courses are essential to maintain certainty, uniformity, and discipline.

It relied on the doctrine that judicial intervention should not ordinarily disturb the statutory framework or academic calendars governing admissions.

Furthermore, the Court established that parity cannot be claimed between distinct educational courses governed by different regulatory bodies (e.g., B.Sc. Nursing vs. NEET PG) nor can policy decisions of one State Government create enforceable rights in another state.

The Division Bench noted that the facts and legal issues of this case were identical to those decided in Writ Appeal No. 169/2026.

The Court reasoned that the appellants entered the admission process with full knowledge of the stipulated schedule.

Reopening the counselling process post-deadline would lead to administrative uncertainty and negatively impact the academic session.

The reduction of the percentile just before the deadline did not justify judicial interference, as the regulatory framework prescribes a structured calendar that must be respected.

Finding no arbitrariness or perversity in the Single Judge’s decision, the Bench concluded that the discretion had been exercised judiciously and in consonance with settled law.

The Court held that students have no enforceable right to seek an extension of a cut-off date once it has expired, and the judiciary should not interfere with notified academic schedules.

The appeal was dismissed in the same terms as Writ Appeal No. 169/2026 without any order as to costs.