1

CGHC010020132026 2026:CGHC:28802

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Order Reserved on : 22.06.2026

Order Delivered on : 10.07.2026

WPC No. 215 of 2026

Private Nursing College Association Of Chhattisgarh Through- The

Founder Member Private Nursingh College Association Of

Chhattisgarh. Registered Under Society Registration Act 1973 Having

Registered Office At Dr. Prafulla Gupta C/o Dr Ramlakhan Gupta,

Agrasen Chowk, Durg (C.G.)

--- Petitioner

Versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary To The Govt. of

Chhattisgarh Department of Medical Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal

Nagar, PS- Rakhi, Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Commissioner Medical Education Swastha Bhawan, North

Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

3 - The Director Medical Education Directorate of Medical Education

Swastha Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,

Raipur (C.G.)

4 - The Chairman Counselling Committee (Nursing Course) Directorate

Of Medical Education Swastha Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava

Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

5 - Indian Nursing Council Through- Registrar Indian Nursing Council

8th Floor, NBCC Centre, Plot No. 2 Community Centre, Okhla Phase-I

New Delhi – 110020

--- Respondents

2

WPC No. 512 of 2026

1 - Ku. Muskan Kaushik D/o Santosh Kaushik Aged About 19 Years R/o

Semara Santoriyum Pendra Road Chhattisgarh

2 - Ku. Madhubala Ogre D/o Shri Vishanu Ogre Aged About 18 Years

Singhanpuri Mungeli District- Mungeli (C.G.)

3 - Labhanshu S/o Shri Amichand Lahre Aged About 18 Years R/o

Godadih Po- Godadih Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

4 - Ku. Usha Hansraj D/o Amarnath Hansraj, Aged About 19 Years R/o

Naharpara, Ward 11 Sendari Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

5 - Ku. Nisha Patel D/o Shri Radheshyam Patel, Aged About 19 Years

R/o Ward No. 14, Berra, Dabhra Khurd District- Janjgir - Champa

(C.G.)

6 - Ku. Indrani Verma D/o Shri Purushottam Verma, Aged About 19

Years R/o Village Mandlore Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

7 - Ku. Sanjana D/o Shri Suresh Kumar Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward

-3 Sadakpara, Changori Bloda Bazar, (C.G.) District- Balodabazar-

Bhatapara

8 - Ku. Tulsi Sannat D/o Devlal Sannat Aged About 19 Years R/o

Kutipara Dagouri, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

9 - Ku. Khushbu Sarpraj D/o Gajadhar Prasad Sarpraj Aged About 19

Years R/o Tildega, Ward No. 19, Darrapara Jashpur, District- Jashpur

(C.G.)

10 - Ku. Chhaya Bhagat D/o Shri Santosh Bhagat Aged About 18 Years

R/o Village Kesara, Jashpur District- Jashpur (C.G.)

11 - Ku. Nikita Kanwar D/o Shri Kailash Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o

Village Churel Dipika District- Korba (C.G.)

---Petitioners

Versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, To The Govt. of

Chhattisgarh Department of Medical Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal

Nagar, P.S. Rakhi, Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Commissioner Medical Education Swastha Bhawan, North

Block Sector- 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

3

3 - The Director, Medical Education Directorate of Medical Education

Swastha Bhawan, North Block Sector- 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar,

Raipur (C.G.)

4 - The Chairman Counselling Committee (Nursing Course) Directorate

Of Medical Education Swastha Bhawan, North Block Sector- 19, Nava

Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

5 - Indian Nursing Council Through Registrar Indian Nursing Council

8th Floor, NBCC Centre Plot No. -2 Community Centre Okhla Phase - I

New Delhi - 110020

--- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Respective

Petitioners

:Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocates

For State :Mr. Anand Dadariya, Deputy Advocate

General

For Union of India :Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor

General along with Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh,

Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

CAV Order

1.Heard Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing

for the respective petitioners. Also heard Mr. Anand Dadariya,

learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State as well

as Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General along

with Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, Advocate, appearing for the Union of

India.

2.Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in

both these writ petitions and the challenge in both matters is

4

directed against the same admission process and the action of

the respondent authorities, they were heard analogously and are

being disposed of by this common order.

3.By filing the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.215 of 2026, an

Association of private nursing colleges imparting education in the

State of Chhattisgarh, and the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.512 of

2026, who are students aspiring for admission to the B.Sc.

(Nursing) course for the Academic Session 2025-2026, have

called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the action of

State authorities in prescribing 10th percentile as the minimum

qualifying criterion in the entrance examination for admission to

the B.Sc. (Nursing) course, despite the decision of respondent

No.5–Indian Nursing Council relaxing the requirement of minimum

qualifying percentile for filling the vacant seats.

4.According to the respective petitioners, the respondent authorities

acted contrary to the directions issued by the Indian Nursing

Council, the provisions of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947

(for short, ‘Act, 1947’) and the Chhattisgarh Nursing Admission

Rules, 2019 (for short, ‘Rules, 2019’) by insisting upon a minimum

qualifying percentile even after the Indian Nursing Council had

relaxed such requirement.

5.In W.P.(C) No.215 of 2026, the petitioner has prayed for the

following reliefs:-

5

"(i) To set aside the decision of Respondent 1

to 4 regarding prescribing of 10 percentile as

minimum qualification for admission to course

of B.Sc. (Nursing) for academic session 2025-

2026.

(2) To direct the Respondent-1 to 4 to allow

the admission to course of B.Sc (Nursing)

strictly on the basis of merits of marks secured

in the entrance examination without any rider

of minimum qualifying marks.

(3) To direct the Respondent 1 to 4 to conduct

the counseling for the admission to course of

B.Sc (Nursing) on the basis of merits strictly in

accordance with the provisions as prescribed

under Admission Rules 2019.

(4) To direct the Respondent-5 to extend the

date of admission suitably.

(5) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court

considers proper, may kindly be awarded."

6.In W.P.(C) No.512 of 2026, the petitioners have prayed for the

following reliefs:-

"(i) To set aside the decision of Respondent 1

to 4 regarding prescribing of 10 percentile as

minimum qualification for admission to course

of B.Sc (Nursing) for academic session 2025-

2026.

(2) To direct the Respondent-1 to 4 to allow

the admission to course of B.Sc (Nursing)

strictly on the basis of merits of marks secured

6

in the entrance examination without any rider

of minimum qualifying marks.

(3) Alternatively direct the Respondent 1 to 4

to provide relaxation in the qualifying marks to

the reserved candidates (SC/ST/OBC) as has

been provided by Indian Nursing Council and

conduct the counseling for the admission to

course of B.Sc (Nursing) on the existing

vacant seats on the basis of merits by

following the criteria as prescribed under Rule

4 (4) (a) and Rule 5 (6) of Admission Rules

2019.

(4) To direct the Respondent-5 to extend the

date of admission suitably.

(5) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court

considers proper, may kindly be awarded."

7.Brief facts of the cases, in a nutshell, are that, petitioner in W.P.(C)

No.215 of 2026 is an Association of private nursing colleges

registered under the Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran

Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, ‘Adhiniyam, 1973’), representing

various private nursing institutions imparting nursing education in

the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.512 of

2026 are candidates who appeared in the entrance examination

conducted for admission to the B.Sc. (Nursing) course for the

Academic Session 2025-2026 by the Professional Examination

Board, Raipur. The admission process to the said course is

governed by the Rules, 2019, framed by the State Government.

7

Rule 4 of the said Rules provides the eligibility criteria for

admission and further stipulates that wherever the Indian Nursing

Council or the State Nursing Council prescribes minimum

qualifying standards for admission to any nursing course, such

standards shall govern the admission process. Clause 16 of the

Act, 1947 further mandates that the directions or criteria

prescribed by the Central Government, the State Government, the

Indian Nursing Council or the State Nursing Council shall be

binding and applicable while conducting admissions.

8.It is the common case of the petitioners that the Indian Nursing

Council, being the statutory body constituted under the Act, 1947,

has prescribed the admission criteria for the B.Sc. (Nursing)

course and has provided that admissions shall be made on the

basis of merit obtained in the entrance examination. For the

Academic Session 2025-2026, the Council prescribed the

minimum qualifying percentile in the entrance examination as 50th

percentile for General category candidates, 45th percentile for

Persons with Disabilities belonging to the General category and

40th percentile for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. The State

Government accordingly conducted the entrance examination

through the Professional Examination Board and commenced the

counselling process strictly in accordance with the aforesaid

norms. Upon completion of the initial rounds of counselling,

however, it was found that out of 7,811 sanctioned seats, as many

8

as 4,147 seats remained vacant, primarily because a large

number of candidates had failed to secure the prescribed

qualifying percentile in the entrance examination.

9.Considering the alarming number of vacant seats and the

practical difficulty in filling them, respondent No.3 addressed a

communication dated 28.11.2025 to the Indian Nursing Council

requesting relaxation of the requirement relating to minimum

qualifying percentile in the entrance examination. In the said

communication, it was specifically pointed out that owing to the

socio-economic and educational conditions prevailing in the State,

particularly in the tribal regions, a substantial number of otherwise

eligible students were unable to secure the prescribed percentile,

resulting in a large number of seats remaining vacant despite the

availability of willing candidates. Accepting the said request, the

Indian Nursing Council, by its communication dated 29.12.2025,

permitted the State Government to undertake a further round of

counselling by relaxing the requirement of minimum qualifying

percentile in the entrance examination so that the remaining

vacant seats could be filled.

10.The controversy giving rise to the present petitions arose

thereafter. According to the petitioners, although the Indian

Nursing Council had relaxed the requirement of minimum

qualifying percentile, respondent No.2, instead of completely

dispensing with such requirement, issued a communication dated

9

29.12.2025 prescribing 10th percentile as the minimum qualifying

benchmark for participation in the fresh counselling.

Consequential notices were issued inviting fresh applications, and

an additional round of counselling was conducted on the basis of

the newly prescribed 10th percentile criterion. The petitioners

contend that respondent No.2 had no authority in law to prescribe

any fresh qualifying percentile once the Indian Nursing Council

had relaxed the requirement itself and had permitted admissions

against the vacant seats without insisting upon the earlier

qualifying benchmark.

11.The petitioner Association contends that the action of respondent

Nos.1 to 4 is wholly without jurisdiction, contrary to Rule 4 of the

Rules, 2019 and Clause 16 of the Act, 1947 and inconsistent with

the statutory powers exercised by the Indian Nursing Council

under the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947. It is pleaded that

once the field relating to prescription of admission standards is

occupied by the Central legislation and the directions issued by

the Indian Nursing Council thereunder, the State authorities could

not have independently introduced a new qualifying standard of

10th percentile. According to the petitioner Association, despite

the relaxation granted by the Indian Nursing Council, more than

2,000 seats still remained vacant because of the insistence on the

10th percentile criterion, resulting in wastage of educational

infrastructure, financial resources and teaching capacity available

in the private nursing institutions, while at the same time depriving

10

eligible candidates of admission.

12.The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.512 of 2026, apart from adopting the

aforesaid challenge, have additionally pleaded that they belong to

the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward

Classes and that under Rule 4(4)(a), Rule 5(6) and Rule 8(2) of

the Rules, 2019, they are entitled to the benefit of reservation and

relaxation in the qualifying standards applicable to reserved

category candidates. It is their specific case that while respondent

No.2 uniformly prescribed 10th percentile for all categories, it

failed to extend the corresponding relaxation and reservation

benefits available to reserved category candidates under the

Admission Rules and the Regulations framed by the Indian

Nursing Council. According to them, the impugned action not only

defeats the very object of the relaxation granted by the Indian

Nursing Council but also has the effect of diluting the statutory

reservation policy by placing reserved category candidates at par

with candidates belonging to the unreserved category. It is further

contended that even after the additional counselling based upon

the 10th percentile criterion, a large number of seats continued to

remain vacant, thereby demonstrating that the impugned decision

failed to achieve the very purpose for which relaxation had been

sought by the State Government.

13.Aggrieved by the prescription of the 10th percentile qualifying

benchmark and the consequential admission process conducted

11

on that basis, the petitioners in both writ petitions have

approached this Court seeking the reliefs noticed hereinabove.

14.Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the

respective petitioners in both the writ petitions, would submit that

the controversy involved in the present batch of petitions lies in a

narrow compass. According to him, the entire challenge revolves

around the legality and competence of the respondent-State

authorities in prescribing 10th percentile as the minimum

qualifying criterion for admission to the B.Sc. (Nursing) course for

the Academic Session 2025-2026 after the Indian Nursing Council

had consciously relaxed the requirement of obtaining the

minimum qualifying percentile in the entrance examination. It is

argued that the Indian Nursing Council, being a statutory body

constituted under the provisions of the Act, 1947, is the sole

authority empowered to prescribe the standards of nursing

education, eligibility criteria and admission norms throughout the

country. Once the competent statutory authority exercised its

jurisdiction and permitted admission by relaxing the condition

relating to minimum qualifying percentile in order to fill the large

number of vacant seats, the State Government had absolutely no

authority, competence or jurisdiction to substitute the decision of

the Indian Nursing Council by introducing a fresh benchmark of

10th percentile through an executive instruction. Such an action,

according to learned counsel, is wholly arbitrary, dehors the

statutory framework and amounts to rewriting the directions

12

issued by the apex regulatory body governing nursing education.

15.It is further submitted by Mr. Shrivsatava that the Indian Nursing

Council, while prescribing the eligibility criteria for admission to

the B.Sc. (Nursing) Course, has consciously extended relaxation

to candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled

Tribes and Other Backward Classes at both stages of eligibility,

namely, the educational qualification as well as the entrance

examination. Insofar as the educational qualification is concerned,

a candidate belonging to the General Category is required to

secure 45% aggregate marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology

in the Higher Secondary (10+2) Examination, whereas candidates

belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other

Backward Classes are entitled to a 5% relaxation, thereby

requiring only 40% aggregate marks in the aforesaid subjects.

Likewise, the Indian Nursing Council has also provided relaxation

in the minimum qualifying percentile in the Common Entrance

Test by prescribing 50th percentile for General Category

candidates, 45th percentile for General-PWD candidates and 40th

percentile for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. The aforesaid

criteria prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council have been

adopted by the State Government itself under Rule 4(4) of the

Rules, 2019, thereby making the same applicable for admissions

within the State. He would further submit that the respondent-

State initially acted strictly in accordance with the aforesaid

13

statutory scheme. The Common Entrance Test for admission to

the B.Sc. (Nursing) Course for the Academic Session 2025-2026

was conducted by the Professional Examination Board under the

norms and eligibility criteria prescribed by the Indian Nursing

Council. Thereafter, the merit list was prepared and the

counselling process commenced vide notice dated 07.10.2025,

wherein admissions were granted strictly on the basis of the

minimum qualifying percentile prescribed by the Indian Nursing

Council, i.e., 50th percentile for General Category candidates,

45th percentile for General-PWD candidates and 40th percentile

for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled

Tribes and Other Backward Classes. It is submitted that the entire

initial admission process was thus conducted by faithfully

implementing the norms prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council,

thereby acknowledging that the authority to prescribe the

qualifying standards vested exclusively with the Indian Nursing

Council. According to learned counsel, once the respondent-State

accepted and implemented the standards prescribed by the Indian

Nursing Council at the initial stage, it was not open to it, after the

Indian Nursing Council had subsequently relaxed the qualifying

percentile, to unilaterally prescribe a fresh qualifying benchmark

of 10th percentile, which finds no mention either in the

communication issued by the Indian Nursing Council.

16.Mr. Shrivastava would further submit that the admission to the

B.Sc. (Nursing) course in the State of Chhattisgarh is governed by

14

the Rules, 2019, which themselves incorporate the standards

prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council. Inviting attention to Rule

4(4) of the Rules, 2019, it is contended that wherever the Indian

Nursing Council or the State Nursing Council prescribes minimum

qualifying marks or eligibility criteria for any nursing course, the

very same standards are mandatorily required to be followed

while granting admission. Similarly, Clause 16 of the Act, 1947

specifically provides that the criteria and directions issued by the

Central Government, the State Government, the Indian Nursing

Council or the State Nursing Council shall govern the admission

process. It is submitted that these provisions unmistakably

recognize the primacy of the standards prescribed by the Indian

Nursing Council. Therefore, once the Indian Nursing Council

relaxed the requirement of securing the prescribed percentile in

the entrance examination, the respondent authorities could not

have introduced a different qualifying benchmark by executive fiat

without there being any amendment in the statutory Admission

Rules. It is argued that executive instructions cannot override

statutory rules, much less nullify a decision taken by the statutory

regulator acting under the Central enactment.

17.Mr. Shrivastava would next contend that the State Government

itself had acknowledged the impracticability of continuing with the

earlier qualifying standards. Referring to the communication dated

28.11.2025, it is submitted that respondent No.3 categorically

informed the Indian Nursing Council that after completion of the

15

regular rounds of counselling, 4,147 seats out of 7,811 sanctioned

seats remained vacant only because a large number of

candidates could not secure the prescribed qualifying percentile in

the entrance examination. The request made by the State was not

for reduction of the qualifying percentile from 50 to 10, but for

complete relaxation of the requirement of minimum qualifying

percentile so that the vacant seats could be filled. The Indian

Nursing Council, after considering the said request, accepted the

same and permitted the State to undertake further admissions by

relaxing the condition relating to minimum qualifying percentile.

However, contrary to the very request made by the State and in

complete departure from the permission granted by the Indian

Nursing Council, respondent No.2, instead of removing the

qualifying benchmark altogether, arbitrarily prescribed 10th

percentile as the minimum eligibility condition. According to Mr.

Shrivastava, the said action is self-contradictory, irrational and

contrary even to the stand earlier adopted by the State

Government itself. Significantly, despite introducing the 10th

percentile criterion, more than 2,000 seats still remained vacant,

thereby frustrating the very object behind seeking relaxation from

the Indian Nursing Council and resulting in enormous wastage of

educational infrastructure and public resources.

18.It is contended by Mr. Shrivastava that the impugned action is

liable to be interfered with on the ground that it violates the

constitutional and statutory rights of candidates belonging to the

16

reserved categories. It is argued that the Regulations framed by

the Indian Nursing Council as well as the provisions contained in

Rule 4(4)(a), Rule 5(6) and Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2019

recognize relaxation and reservation in favour of Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. The

petitioners in W.P.(C) No.512 of 2026 belong to the reserved

categories and were entitled to the benefit of such relaxation.

However, while prescribing the minimum qualifying benchmark of

10th percentile, the respondent authorities applied the same

uniformly to candidates belonging to all categories without

extending the statutory benefit available to reserved category

candidates. Such action, according to learned counsel, completely

defeats the object of reservation, obliterates the distinction

recognized under the statutory Rules and the Regulations of the

Indian Nursing Council, and has the effect of taking away the

valuable rights conferred upon candidates belonging to Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. It is,

therefore, submitted that the impugned action is not only contrary

to the Rules, 2019 but is also violative of the constitutional

mandate relating to equality and protective discrimination.

19.Mr. Shrivastava would also submit that the field relating to

prescription of educational standards and admission criteria for

nursing courses is fully occupied by the Central legislation,

namely the Act, 1947, and the Regulations framed thereunder.

Consequently, the State Government lacks legislative as well as

17

executive competence to prescribe any standard inconsistent with

the standards laid down by the Indian Nursing Council. Placing

reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maa

Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh,

(2013) 2 SCC 617, learned counsel would submit that where the

field is occupied by a Central enactment, the State cannot issue

directions which are inconsistent with or repugnant to the law

framed by the competent Central authority. According to him, after

the Indian Nursing Council had consciously removed the

requirement of minimum qualifying percentile, the respondent

authorities could not have reintroduced the same in another form

by prescribing a minimum benchmark of 10th percentile, as such

action directly conflicts with the decision of the statutory regulator

and is therefore liable to be declared illegal, arbitrary and without

jurisdiction.

20.Lastly, Mr. Shrivastava would submit that the objection of the

respondents regarding expiry of the cut-off date for admission is

wholly untenable in the facts of the present case. He would

contend that the petitioners approached this Court without any

delay and the denial of admission is solely attributable to the

illegal action of the respondent authorities in prescribing a

qualifying criterion which had never been authorized by the Indian

Nursing Council. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University

of Health Sciences and others, AIR 2012 SC 3396, as also the

18

decision rendered by this Court in Shreya Choubey and others

v. Union of India and others (W.P.(C) No.1020 of 2019 decided

on 07.05.2019), learned counsel would submit that where denial

of admission is the result of arbitrary or illegal action of the

authorities and no fault can be attributed to the candidates, the

constitutional courts are fully empowered to mould the relief,

extend the admission schedule and direct fresh counselling in

order to do complete justice. It is, therefore, urged that the

impugned communications prescribing the minimum qualifying

benchmark of 10th percentile deserve to be quashed, and the

respondents be directed to conduct a fresh round of counselling

against the vacant seats strictly in accordance with the directions

issued by the Indian Nursing Council, the provisions of the Act,

1947 and Rules, 2019, without insisting upon any unauthorized

qualifying percentile.

21.On the other hand, Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned Deputy Advocate

General appearing for the State, while vehemently opposing the

submissions advanced on behalf of the respective petitioners,

would submit that both the writ petitions are wholly misconceived,

devoid of any legal merit and deserve to be dismissed at the

threshold. According to him, the entire edifice of the petitioners'

case proceeds on an erroneous interpretation of the

communication issued by the Indian Nursing Council dated

29.12.2025. It is contended that the petitioners have attempted to

read into the said communication something which was never

19

intended by the Indian Nursing Council. The expression employed

by the Indian Nursing Council, namely, "relaxing the percentile

criteria", cannot be construed to mean complete abolition or total

dispensing with the requirement of qualifying in the Common

Entrance Test. The communication merely permitted the State

Government to relax the minimum qualifying percentile so as to

facilitate filling up of the remaining vacant seats. It neither

prohibited the State Government from prescribing a reasonable

qualifying benchmark nor mandated that admissions should be

granted irrespective of the marks secured by the candidates in the

entrance examination. According to the learned Deputy Advocate

General, the decision of the respondent authorities in prescribing

10th percentile as the minimum qualifying benchmark was a

reasonable administrative decision taken in exercise of the

powers conferred under the statutory Admission Rules and,

therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational or dehors the

statutory framework.

22.Mr. Dadariya would further submit that the admission process for

the B.Sc. (Nursing) Course is governed by the Rules, 2019, which

contemplate multiple stages of counselling and also provide a

mechanism for filling up the seats which remain vacant after

completion of the regular counselling process. Inviting the

attention of this Court to Rule 9(4) of the Rules, 2019, it is

contended that where seats continue to remain vacant after the

registered candidates have participated in the counselling

20

process, the Director is specifically empowered to permit fresh

registrations in accordance with the Rules. The said provision also

provides that by the stage of such fresh registration, the reserved

seats stand converted in accordance with the reservation policy

and all the remaining seats become unreserved. Therefore, the

decision to invite fresh applications and to undertake another

round of counselling after completion of the regular counselling

process was strictly in consonance with the statutory Rules

governing admissions and cannot be faulted. It is submitted that

every step undertaken by the respondent authorities, including

issuance of fresh registration notice, preparation of revised merit

list and completion of counselling, was carried out under the

statutory scheme and within the extended timeline granted by the

Indian Nursing Council.

23.Elaborating his submissions further, Mr. Dadariya would contend

that the petitioners have deliberately ignored the factual

background which necessitated the impugned decision. It is

submitted that after completion of the regular counselling, mop-up

round and stray vacancy round, a substantial number of seats still

remained vacant. In those circumstances, the Director, Medical

Education addressed a communication to the Indian Nursing

Council requesting relaxation of the qualifying percentile

requirement. The Indian Nursing Council, while responding to the

said request, merely conveyed that it had "no objection" to filling

up the vacant seats by granting admission to candidates who had

21

appeared in the Common Entrance Test by relaxing the

percentage criteria. According to learned counsel, the

communication nowhere directs the State Government to

dispense with the qualifying percentile altogether. On the contrary,

the communication expressly refers to "candidates appearing in

the Common Entrance Test, 2025", thereby making it abundantly

clear that participation in the entrance examination and

maintenance of a qualifying standard remained an essential

requirement. Had the intention of the Indian Nursing Council been

to completely abolish the qualifying benchmark, there was no

occasion to refer to candidates who had appeared in the entrance

examination. It is, therefore, submitted that the interpretation

sought to be placed by the petitioners would render substantial

portions of the communication otiose and is contrary to settled

principles of interpretation. The respondent authorities, therefore,

acted within the four corners of the permission granted by the

Indian Nursing Council by prescribing a substantially relaxed

benchmark of 10th percentile, thereby balancing the need to fill

the vacant seats without completely sacrificing academic

standards.

24.Mr. Dadariya would further submit that there is absolutely no

conflict between the action of the State Government and the

provisions of the Act, 1947 or the Rules, 2019. According to him,

the State has neither altered the eligibility criteria prescribed by

the Indian Nursing Council nor substituted the entrance

22

examination by any other mode of selection. Every candidate who

was granted admission under the impugned process had

necessarily appeared in the Common Entrance Test conducted by

the competent authority. The respondent authorities merely

reduced the qualifying percentile from the originally prescribed

standard to 10th percentile in order to give effect to the relaxation

granted by the Indian Nursing Council. It is argued that

prescription of a minimum benchmark, even after relaxation, is a

matter of administrative discretion intended to preserve minimum

academic standards and cannot be termed arbitrary merely

because the petitioners seek complete removal of such

requirement. Learned counsel would also submit that the

petitioners' interpretation would virtually result in admission of

candidates irrespective of their performance in the entrance

examination, which would seriously compromise the standards of

professional nursing education and defeat the very object behind

holding a competitive entrance examination.

25.It is contended by Mr. Dadariya that the challenge laid by the

petitioners suffers from a fundamental defect of maintainability.

According to him, the petitioners have questioned the decision of

the respondent authorities in a general manner without

challenging the actual operative orders by which the admission

process was implemented. It is pointed out that the

communication dated 29.12.2025 permitting admissions to

candidates securing 10th percentile or above, the fresh

23

registration notice dated 29.12.2025, as well as the consequential

merit list and admission notice dated 30.12.2025, constitute the

operative decisions governing the entire admission process. In the

absence of any challenge to these consequential orders, no

effective relief can be granted by this Court. The writ petitions,

therefore, are liable to be dismissed on the ground of

maintainability alone.

26.Mr. Dadariya would next contend that the relief sought by the

petitioners has, in any case, become incapable of being granted

in view of the expiry of the statutory cut-off date prescribed by the

Indian Nursing Council. Referring to Notification No.23 of 2025

dated 24.12.2025, it is submitted that the Indian Nursing Council

extended the last date of admission for all nursing courses till

31.12.2025, while categorically stipulating that no further

extension shall be granted and that no admissions shall be

undertaken after the said cut-off date. It is argued that the

schedule fixed by the statutory regulator has binding force and is

required to be adhered to uniformly throughout the country. Once

the final date prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council has

expired, this Court ought not to issue any direction which would

have the effect of reopening the admission process or extending

the admission schedule contrary to the statutory mandate.

According to him, acceptance of the petitioners' prayer would not

only unsettle the completed admission process but would also

adversely affect the academic calendar and discipline required to

24

be maintained in professional educational institutions.

27.In continuation of his submissions, learned Deputy Advocate

General would place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in St. Stephen's Hospital College of Nursing v.

Union of India (SLP (C) No.10571 of 2022) to contend that the

law is well settled that the time schedule prescribed for

admissions in professional educational institutions is mandatory

and has to be adhered to with utmost strictness. The Apex Court

has consistently held that the admission process cannot be

permitted to continue indefinitely and that any deviation from the

prescribed academic schedule adversely affects the standard of

education and the academic session itself. It is submitted that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the High

Courts should ordinarily refrain from issuing directions for

conducting additional counselling or mop-up rounds after expiry of

the prescribed admission schedule merely because certain seats

remain vacant. According to learned counsel, the present case

does not warrant any departure from the settled legal position.

Since the respondent authorities acted strictly within the statutory

framework, after exhaustion of all permissible rounds of

counselling and within the period extended by the Indian Nursing

Council, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is called for. He, therefore, prays that both the writ petitions,

being devoid of substance, deserve to be dismissed.

25

28.Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General along with

Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Union

of India/Indian Nursing Council, while supporting the stand taken

by the State respondents, would submit that the Indian Nursing

Council had merely granted a one-time relaxation to facilitate

filling up of the vacant B.Sc. (Nursing) seats within the extended

admission schedule and that the said communication cannot be

construed as dispensing with the entrance examination or

completely abolishing the requirement of maintaining minimum

academic standards. It is further submitted that the last date for

admission, as extended by the Indian Nursing Council up to

31.12.2025, has long since expired and no further extension is

permissible. He would, therefore, submit that no interference is

warranted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction and both the writ

petitions deserve to be dismissed.

29.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties

at considerable length and carefully perused the pleadings, the

documents brought on record and the relevant statutory

provisions governing the controversy involved in the present writ

petitions.

30.Before proceeding further to adjudicate the rival submissions

advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant

statutory provision governing the controversy involved in the

26

present writ petitions. Rule 4(4) of the Chhattisgarh Nursing

Admission Rules, 2019, being the pivot around which the entire

controversy revolves, reads as under:-

"4. पात्रता

xxxx

(चार) नर्सिंग पाठ्यक्रमों में प्रवेश हेतु न्यूनतम शैक्षणिक

अर्हतायें :-

"

जिनपाठ्यक्रमोंकेलिएभारतीयउपचर्यापरिषद

, नई

दिल्ली

/

राज्यउपचर्यापरिषदद्वारानिम्नलिखितन्यूनतम

अर्हकारीअंकनिर्धारितहोंगे

,

उनपाठ्यक्रमोंकेलिएवे

निर्देशलागूहोंगे।

"

31.A careful, meaningful and purposive reading of the aforesaid

statutory provision leaves no room for any ambiguity. The

legislative intent underlying Rule 4(4) of the Rules, 2019 is explicit

and unambiguous. The Rule itself incorporates by reference the

standards, eligibility criteria and minimum qualifying marks

prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council as the governing norms

for admission to nursing courses within the State. The Rule does

not confer any independent authority upon the State Government,

the Commissioner, Medical Education or any other State

functionary to alter, modify, substitute or dilute the criteria

prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council. On the contrary, the

Rule mandates that once the Indian Nursing Council prescribes

any minimum qualifying standard or subsequently modifies or

relaxes the same, the said prescription becomes automatically

27

applicable while regulating admissions in the State. The Rule thus

creates a statutory obligation upon the respondent authorities to

faithfully implement the norms prescribed by the Indian Nursing

Council without either adding to or subtracting from them.

32.It deserves to be noticed that the Indian Nursing Council has been

constituted under the provisions of the Act, 1947, a Central

enactment enacted by Parliament with the avowed object of

maintaining uniform standards of nursing education throughout

the country. The Act confers upon the Indian Nursing Council the

exclusive statutory responsibility to prescribe standards of

education, qualifications for admission, eligibility criteria,

curriculum and other academic requirements relating to nursing

education. The object behind vesting such power in a Central

statutory authority is obvious. Professional education, particularly

in the field of medicine and nursing, necessarily requires

maintenance of uniform standards across the country. If individual

States are permitted to prescribe varying standards or alter the

eligibility criteria prescribed by the apex statutory regulator, it

would inevitably result in inconsistency, uncertainty and erosion of

academic standards. It is for this reason that the State Rules

themselves consciously recognize the supremacy of the

standards prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council.

33.In the considered opinion of this Court, Rule 4(4) of the Rules,

2019 has to be construed harmoniously with the Clause 16 of the

28

Act, 1947, which fortifies the legislative intent by providing that the

criteria and directions issued by the Central Government, the

State Government, the Indian Nursing Council or the State

Nursing Council shall govern admissions. However, insofar as

prescription of educational standards and qualifying criteria is

concerned, the field is undeniably occupied by the Indian Nursing

Council acting under the Central legislation. Consequently,

whenever the Indian Nursing Council prescribes, modifies or

relaxes the qualifying standards, the respondent-State is under a

statutory obligation to faithfully implement such directions. It

cannot selectively adopt one part of the direction and

simultaneously substitute another part by introducing a condition

of its own.

34.In Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, while considering the interplay between the

powers of the statutory regulatory body constituted under the

Central enactment and the authority of the State Government in

matters relating to prescription of admission norms and

educational standards, has held as under:-

“66.... of course, there has to be direct conflict

between the laws. The direct conflict is not

necessarily to be the obedience of resulting

disobedience of the other but even where the

result of one would be in conflict with the

other. It is difficult to state any one principle

that would uniformly be applicable to all cases

29

of repugnancy. It will have to be seen in the

facts of each case while keeping in mind the

laws which are in conflict with each other.

Where the field is occupied by the Centre,

subject to the exceptions stated in Article 254,

the State law would be void.”

35.Similarly, in Asha (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while

considering the issue of grant of admission after expiry of the

prescribed cut-off date and the power of the Constitutional Courts

to mould the relief in exceptional circumstances where the

candidate is not at fault, has held as under:-

“31. There is no doubt that 30th September is

the cut of The authorities can not grant

admission beyond the cut of date which is

specifically postulated. But no fault is

attributable to a candidate and she is denied

admission for arbitrary reasons, should the

cut-off date be permitted to operate as bar to

admission to such students particularly when

it would result in complete ruining of the

professional career of meritorious we have

candidates, is the question we have to

answer …………

………… Though there can be rare cases or

exceptional circumstances where the courts

may have to mould the relief and make

exception to the cut-off date of 30th

September, but in those cases, the Cout must

first return a finding that no fault is attributable

to the candidate, the candidate has pursued

30

her rights and legal remedies expeditiously

without any delay and that there is fault on

the part of the authorities and apparent

breach of some rules, regulations and

principles in the process of selection and

grant of admission. Where denial of

admission violates the right to equality and

equal treatment of the candidates, it would be

completely unjust and unfair to deny such

exceptional relief to the candidates………….”

36.The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while dealing with an

identical issue relating to admission in professional medical

courses in Shreya Choubey (supra) after noticing that the

petitioners were not responsible for the delay in completion of the

admission process and that the delay had occasioned on account

of repeated adjournments sought by the respondents for filing

their replies, held that the petitioners ought not to be deprived of

admission solely because the prescribed cut-off date had expired

during the pendency of the writ proceedings. The Co-ordinate

Bench, placing reliance upon the principles enunciated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed the respondent authorities to

complete the admission process strictly on the basis of merit

within the time stipulated by the Court and further directed the

concerned colleges to conduct extra classes for the students

admitted pursuant to the Court's order so that the minimum

academic requirements and attendance prescribed under the

Regulations could be duly fulfilled. The underlying principle laid

31

down by the Co-ordinate Bench is that where the delay in

finalization of the admission process is not attributable to the

candidates but has occurred on account of pendency of the

litigation or the conduct of the authorities themselves, the students

should not be made to suffer for no fault of theirs and the

Constitutional Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is competent to

mould the relief in such a manner that substantial justice is done

while simultaneously safeguarding the academic standards by

directing the institutions concerned to hold extra classes and

ensure compliance with the prescribed curriculum. Relevant part

of paragraph-19 of the said order reads as follows :-

“19. ……...The perusal of the order-sheets of

this Court show that on each occasion the

time was sought by the Union and State

counsel to file reply, as such the delay cannot

be attributed to the petitioners, therefore, it

appears that there is no deliberate delay has

been caused at the behest of the petitioners.

At this juncture this Court can again be

guided by the persuasive value of principle

laid down by the Supreme Court in the

Association of Managements of Homeopathic

Medical Colleges of Maharashtra (supra) and

direct the respondents to complete the

process of admission strictly on the basis of

merit by 25th of May, 2019 to the 1st Year of

BAMS & BHMS. The managements of the

colleges are directed to hold extra classes for

32

students who will be admitted pursuant to this

order to comply with the requirements of

minimum working days.”

37.Reverting to the facts of the present batch of writ petitions in the

light of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the judicial

precedents rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maa

Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) and Asha (supra),

as also the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Shreya Choubey (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion

that the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in prescribing 10th

percentile as the minimum qualifying criterion for admission to the

B.Sc. (Nursing) Course for the Academic Session 2025-2026

cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Once the Indian Nursing

Council, in exercise of its statutory powers under the Act, 1947,

consciously relaxed the requirement of minimum qualifying

percentile with a view to ensure that the large number of vacant

seats in the nursing colleges of the State are duly filled, the

respondent-State, being merely an implementing authority, had no

jurisdiction or competence to introduce a fresh qualifying

benchmark of 10th percentile, which neither finds mention in nor

flows from the communication issued by the Indian Nursing

Council.

38.Such an action is clearly dehors the provisions of Rule 4(4) read

with Clause 16 of the Act, 1947 and is also contrary to the scheme

of the Central enactment governing the field. The respondent

33

authorities, by prescribing an independent qualifying percentile,

have virtually substituted the decision of the expert statutory body

with their own administrative decision, which is impermissible in

law.

39.It is equally significant to notice that the respondent-State itself

approached the Indian Nursing Council seeking relaxation on the

ground that, out of 7,811 sanctioned seats, 4,147 seats had

remained vacant because of the stringent qualifying percentile

prescribed in the entrance examination, particularly keeping in

view the educational conditions prevailing in the tribal and

backward areas of the State. Having obtained such relaxation

from the Indian Nursing Council, the respondent authorities could

not have frustrated the very object behind the relaxation by again

prescribing 10th percentile as the minimum qualifying criterion.

The subsequent events further demonstrate that even after the

impugned prescription of 10th percentile, more than 2,000 seats

continued to remain vacant, thereby defeating the very purpose

for which relaxation had been sought from the Indian Nursing

Council. The impugned action has thus not only resulted in

wastage of valuable educational infrastructure and sanctioned

seats but has also deprived several otherwise eligible and

meritorious candidates of an opportunity to pursue the B.Sc.

(Nursing) course despite the availability of vacant seats.

40.Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at

34

considerable length, bestowed my anxious consideration to their

rival submissions, carefully perused the pleadings, documents

brought on record and the statutory provisions governing the field,

this Court is of the considered opinion that the principal issue

which falls for determination in the present batch of writ petitions

is a narrow yet significant one, namely, whether after the Indian

Nursing Council, in exercise of its statutory powers under the Act,

1947, relaxed the requirement of securing the prescribed

minimum qualifying percentile in the Common Entrance Test for

admission to the B.Sc. (Nursing) Course for the Academic

Session 2025-2026, respondent No.2–Commissioner, Medical

Education, being an authority under the State Government, could

have independently prescribed 10th percentile as the minimum

qualifying criterion for all categories of candidates, including

General, General-PWD, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and

Other Backward Classes, without there being any such stipulation

in the communication issued by the Indian Nursing Council. The

ancillary question which also arises for consideration is whether

such an executive decision of the State authority can override or

supplement the directions issued by the statutory regulator

constituted under a Central enactment and whether such action

can withstand judicial scrutiny in the light of the Rules, 2019 and

the Act, 1947.

41.The answer to the aforesaid question, in the considered opinion of

this Court, has to be in the negative. Rule 4(4) of the Rules, 2019,

35

which has already been extracted hereinabove, unequivocally

provides that wherever the Indian Nursing Council or the State

Nursing Council prescribes the minimum qualifying standards for

admission to any nursing course, the same alone shall govern

admissions to such courses. Thus, the Rule itself recognizes the

primacy of the standards prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council

and does not envisage any independent exercise by the State

Government in the matter of prescription of qualifying criteria. It is

not in dispute before this Court that initially the Indian Nursing

Council prescribed 50th percentile for candidates belonging to the

General category, 45th percentile for General-PWD candidates

and 40th percentile for candidates belonging to the Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Acting

upon the said norms, the respondent-State conducted the

entrance examination and completed the initial rounds of

counselling.

42.However, after completion of the counselling process, it was found

that out of 7,811 sanctioned seats, as many as 4,147 seats

remained vacant solely because a substantial number of

candidates could not secure the prescribed qualifying percentile in

the entrance examination. It was in these exceptional

circumstances that the State itself approached the Indian Nursing

Council requesting relaxation of the qualifying percentile keeping

in view the peculiar educational conditions prevailing in the tribal

dominated areas of the State and the alarming number of vacant

36

seats.

43.Pursuant to the aforesaid request, the Indian Nursing Council,

after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances brought to

its notice by the State Government, consciously relaxed the

requirement relating to the qualifying percentile by its

communication dated 29.12.2025. Significantly, the

communication issued by the Indian Nursing Council nowhere

authorizes the respondent-State to prescribe 10th percentile or

any other qualifying benchmark in substitution of the relaxed

criteria. Nevertheless, respondent No.2, on its own, issued a

communication prescribing 10th percentile as the minimum

qualifying criterion applicable uniformly to all candidates

irrespective of their respective categories. In the considered

opinion of this Court, such an action is clearly beyond the

competence of respondent No.2.

44.Once the expert statutory body constituted under the Central

enactment exercised its statutory discretion and relaxed the

qualifying percentile, the State Government had no authority

either to curtail the extent of such relaxation or to substitute the

same by prescribing an altogether new qualifying standard.

Respondent No.2 was merely required to implement the decision

of the Indian Nursing Council and not to improve upon or modify

it.

45.This Court also finds considerable force in the submission

37

advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the prescription of a

common 10th percentile for all categories virtually obliterates the

distinction consciously maintained by the Indian Nursing Council

while prescribing different qualifying percentiles for General,

General-PWD and SC/ST/OBC candidates. The constitutional

mandate relating to reservation and relaxation cannot be ignored

by treating unequals equally. Once differential qualifying

standards had originally been recognized for different classes of

candidates, respondent No.2 could not have placed every

category of candidates on an identical footing by prescribing a

common qualifying benchmark. Such an exercise not only travels

beyond the communication issued by the Indian Nursing Council

but also runs contrary to the spirit of the Reservation Rules and

the Rules, 2019. It is also noteworthy that despite prescribing 10th

percentile, the object sought to be achieved by the State itself

remained unfulfilled, as even thereafter more than 2,000 seats

continued to remain vacant. The impugned action, therefore, has

not only failed to achieve its professed object but has also

deprived a large number of otherwise eligible candidates of

admission while simultaneously resulting in wastage of valuable

educational infrastructure.

46.The aforesaid conclusion also receives complete support from the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno

Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), wherein the Apex Court has

authoritatively held that once the field is occupied by a Central

38

legislation and the statutory authority constituted thereunder

prescribes the standards governing professional education, the

State Government or its instrumentalities cannot issue executive

instructions inconsistent with or repugnant to such statutory

prescriptions. The supremacy of the Central legislation in matters

relating to determination of educational standards is no longer res

integra. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present

case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that respondent No.2,

being a statutory authority functioning under the State

Government, could not have assumed unto itself the power of

prescribing 10th percentile after the Indian Nursing Council had

consciously relaxed the qualifying percentile. The impugned

action, therefore, deserves to be declared without jurisdiction,

arbitrary and contrary to the statutory scheme governing

admissions to nursing courses.

47.Insofar as the objection raised on behalf of the State that no relief

can now be granted in view of expiry of the last date of admission

is concerned, the same also deserves to be rejected. As noticed

hereinabove, the petitioners approached this Court with utmost

promptitude immediately after issuance of the impugned

communication. The record further reveals that substantial time

during the pendency of these writ petitions was consumed in

completion of pleadings and on account of repeated opportunities

sought by the respondents for filing their respective replies. Thus,

the delay in adjudication of the controversy cannot, by any stretch

39

of imagination, be attributed to the petitioners. It is now well

settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha

(supra) that where denial of admission is attributable to arbitrary

or illegal action of the authorities and the candidate is not at fault,

the Constitutional Courts are fully empowered to mould the relief

and issue appropriate directions even after expiry of the

admission schedule in order to prevent perpetuation of injustice.

The present case, in the considered opinion of this Court,

squarely falls within the exceptional category recognized by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

48.This Court also finds support from the decision rendered by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shreya Choubey (supra),

wherein under similar circumstances, this Court directed

completion of the admission process beyond the prescribed

schedule after recording a finding that the delay was not

attributable to the students and further directed the concerned

institutions to conduct extra classes so that the minimum

academic requirements could be duly fulfilled. The principle

emerging from the said decision is that where the students are

deprived of admission because of illegal or arbitrary action on the

part of the authorities and not on account of any fault attributable

to them, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, can mould the relief in a manner which

advances substantial justice without compromising the academic

standards.

40

49.Recently, in Association of Managements of Homeopathic

Medical Colleges of Maharashtra v. Union of India and

others, (2019) 20 SCC 511, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while

dealing with the similar issue has held as under :-

“5. The appellant Association made a

representation to Respondent 1 on 28-8-2018

in which they stated that a large number of

seats will remain unfilled if the altered

standards are strictly followed. As there was no

response from the respondent, the appellant

Association filed a writ petition in the High

Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the

letter dated 11-6-2018 of Respondent 1 and the

consequential notice of Respondent 3. The

main contention of the appellant in the writ

petition was that the altered standards for

admission introduced by letter dated 11-6-2018

should not be applied to the ongoing admission

process and that the admissions for the year

2018-2019 should be conducted in accordance

with the information brochure which was issued

on 5-2-2018. The appellant Association was

not aggrieved by the introduction of NEET

examination for admission into the BHMS

course. The only submission made on behalf of

the appellant was that the percentile method

should not have been prescribed after the

commencement of the admission process. The

High Court rejected the said submission by

holding that the student community was aware

about the criterion fixed for the admissions on

41

11-6-2018 before the online process started

much before the last date of registration on 17-

6-2018. As the selection is on the basis of

merit, according to the High Court, introduction

of minimum percentile cannot be said to be

unjustified. The point urged on behalf of the

appellant that the relevant regulations have

been altered or modified by an executive fiat

was also rejected by the High Court.

7. We have perused the judgments and orders

passed by the High Courts of Patna,

Karnataka, Madras, Rajasthan, Punjab &

Haryana, Allahabad and Kolkata. Directions

were issued in favour of the students permitting

admissions on the basis of the marks in the

qualifying examination without reference to the

marks secured by them in the NEET UG-2018

examination. The learned Additional Solicitor

General fairly submitted that none of the

judgments or orders passed by the High Courts

have been challenged.

8. Though the last date for admission to the

BHMS course was 15-11-2018, we are

informed that the last date was extended till 20-

12-2018 by the Allahabad High Court. Though

there is no agreement on the exact number of

vacant seats, it is common ground that there

are vacant seats for admission to the Ist year

BHMS course in the State of Maharashtra. As

there is no uniformity in the matter of admission

to the 1st year BHMS course for the year 2018-

2019, as securing minimum marks in NEET is

42

not required in some States pursuant to orders

of the High Courts, we are of the opinion that

the appellants are entitled to the relief of

admissions being made without reference to

the letter dated 11-6-2018 of Respondent 1 and

the consequential notice of Respondent 3. In

other words, the appellant Association should

be permitted to make admissions to the 1st

year BHMS course for the academic session

2018-2019 on the basis of the eligibility criteria

mentioned in the information brochure dated 5-

2-2018. A candidate who has secured

minimum marks in the NEET UG-2018 shall be

eligible for admission to the 1st year BHMS

course for the academic year 2018-2019.

9. As two months have passed after the last

date of admission to the 1st year BHMS course

i.e. 15-11-2018, we direct the appellants to

complete the process of admissions strictly on

the basis of merit by 15-2-2019. The

managements of the colleges are directed to

hold extra classes for students who will be

admitted pursuant to this order to comply with

the requirements of minimum working days.

This order which is passed in the peculiar facts

of the case shall not be f treated as a

precedent. No opinion is expressed by us

regarding the introduction of the minimum

percentile as an eligibility criteria in the NEET

examination.”

50.Reverting to the facts of the present batch of writ petitions in the

light of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the judicial

43

precedents rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maa

Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), Asha (supra),

Association of Managements of Homeopathic Medical

Colleges of Maharashtra (supra), as well as the decision

rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shreya

Choubey (supra), it is quite vivid that the controversy involved in

the present case essentially centres around the competence of

respondent No.2–Commissioner, Medical Education, to prescribe

an additional qualifying criterion of 10th percentile for admission to

the B.Sc. (Nursing) Course for the Academic Session 2025-2026,

despite the fact that the Indian Nursing Council, being the

statutory regulatory authority constituted under the Indian Nursing

Council Act, 1947, had already exercised its statutory power and

relaxed the minimum qualifying percentile for admission.

51.The material available on record clearly demonstrates that initially

the Indian Nursing Council had prescribed minimum qualifying

percentiles for different categories of candidates, namely 50th

percentile for General category candidates, 45th percentile for

General-PWD candidates and 40th percentile for candidates

belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other

Backward Classes. The respondent-State, acting upon the said

norms, conducted the Common Entrance Test and initiated the

counselling process. However, during the course of counselling, it

was noticed that a substantial number of seats remained vacant.

Out of the total sanctioned strength of 7,811 seats, approximately

44

4,147 seats remained unfilled on account of a large number of

candidates being unable to secure the prescribed qualifying

percentile.

52.It is in the aforesaid peculiar circumstances that the respondent-

State itself approached the Indian Nursing Council seeking

relaxation of the qualifying percentile, particularly keeping in view

the educational conditions prevailing in the tribal and backward

areas of the State and the possibility of wastage of valuable

educational infrastructure due to large number of vacant seats.

Upon consideration of the request made by the State

Government, the Indian Nursing Council, being the expert

statutory body entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining

standards of nursing education throughout the country,

consciously relaxed the qualifying criteria by its communication

dated 29.12.2025.

53.Once the Indian Nursing Council exercised its statutory power and

relaxed the qualifying percentile, the respondent authorities were

required only to implement and give effect to the said decision.

However, instead of acting as an implementing agency,

respondent No.2 proceeded to prescribe an independent

qualifying benchmark of 10th percentile for all categories of

candidates. Such prescription, in the opinion of this Court,

amounts to introducing a fresh eligibility condition which neither

emanates from the statutory authority nor finds any basis in the

45

communication issued by the Indian Nursing Council.

54.The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno

Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) squarely applies to the facts

of the present case. The Apex Court has categorically held that

where the field is occupied by a Central legislation and the

statutory authority constituted thereunder has prescribed the

standards governing the subject, the State authorities cannot

issue executive instructions which are inconsistent with or have

the effect of modifying such statutory prescriptions. The principle

emerging from the said judgment is that the standards prescribed

by the expert statutory body cannot be diluted, altered or

supplemented by an administrative authority acting under the

State Government.

55.Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court has no hesitation in

holding that respondent No.2 exceeded its jurisdiction by

prescribing an additional qualifying criterion of 10th percentile

after the Indian Nursing Council had already relaxed the qualifying

requirement. Respondent No.2 was not vested with any authority

to either curtail the benefit of relaxation granted by the Indian

Nursing Council or to substitute the same by imposing an

independent benchmark. Such an action is contrary to the

statutory scheme and beyond the competence of the respondent

authority.

56.This Court also finds substance in the contention of the petitioners

46

that the impugned action has resulted in treating unequals

equally. The Indian Nursing Council, while prescribing the original

qualifying criteria, had consciously maintained separate qualifying

standards for different categories of candidates, keeping in view

the constitutional mandate relating to affirmative action and the

socio-economic conditions of various sections of society. By

prescribing a uniform 10th percentile for all categories,

respondent No.2 has virtually ignored the distinction recognized

by the statutory regulator and has acted contrary to the very

purpose for which different qualifying criteria were prescribed.

57.The justification sought to be advanced by the State that the

prescription of 10th percentile was intended to maintain academic

standards also does not appeal to this Court. The Indian Nursing

Council, which is the statutory expert body competent to

determine such standards, had itself considered the relevant

factors before granting relaxation. Once the competent statutory

authority, after due application of mind, found it appropriate to

relax the qualifying criteria in view of the peculiar circumstances

prevailing in the State, the State authorities could not substitute

their own assessment and introduce a fresh restriction.

58.It is also significant to notice that the object sought to be achieved

by respondent No.2 through prescription of 10th percentile has

not been achieved. Despite the impugned prescription, a large

number of seats continued to remain vacant. Thus, the impugned

47

action has neither served the intended purpose of ensuring

admission of suitable candidates nor prevented wastage of

educational infrastructure. On the contrary, it has resulted in

depriving several candidates, who became eligible pursuant to the

relaxation granted by the Indian Nursing Council, from securing

admission despite availability of vacant seats.

59.The objection raised by the respondents regarding expiry of the

admission schedule also deserves consideration. In the present

case, the petitioners approached this Court challenging the

impugned action without any undue delay. The delay in final

adjudication of the matter occurred during the pendency of the

proceedings and cannot be attributed to the petitioners. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asha (supra) has held that though the

prescribed cut-off date for admission is required to be respected,

exceptional circumstances may warrant moulding of relief where

the candidate is not responsible for the delay and denial of

admission is a consequence of arbitrary action on the part of the

authorities.

60.The principle laid down in Asha (supra) has further been followed

by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shreya Choubey

(supra), wherein it was held that students should not suffer for the

delay occasioned due to the conduct of the authorities or

pendency of litigation. The Constitutional Court, while exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is

48

empowered to mould the relief in such circumstances so as to

balance the rights of the candidates with the requirement of

maintaining academic standards.

61.Similarly, in Association of Managements of Homeopathic

Medical Colleges of Maharashtra (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, considering the issue of vacant seats and altered

admission criteria during the admission process, permitted

admissions to be made in accordance with the eligibility criteria

applicable at the relevant time and directed the institutions to

conduct additional classes so that the academic requirements

could be fulfilled. The underlying principle is that where

candidates are not responsible for the situation resulting in denial

of admission and where vacant seats are available, the Court can

mould the relief to prevent injustice.

62.Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the impugned communication issued by

respondent No.2 prescribing 10th percentile as the minimum

qualifying criterion for admission to B.Sc. (Nursing) Course for the

Academic Session 2025-2026 is unsustainable in law. The same

is contrary to the statutory scheme under the Act, 1947 and the

Rules governing admission, as it seeks to override and modify the

decision taken by the statutory regulatory authority.

63.Consequently, and for all the reasons recorded hereinabove, both

the writ petitions deserve to succeed and are accordingly allowed.

49

The communication/decision issued by respondent Nos.1 to 4

prescribing 10th percentile as the minimum qualifying criterion for

admission to the B.Sc. (Nursing) Course for the Academic

Session 2025-2026 is hereby quashed. The respondent

authorities are directed to undertake a fresh round of counselling

for filling the remaining vacant seats strictly in accordance with the

communication issued by the Indian Nursing Council dated

29.12.2025, without insisting upon any minimum qualifying

percentile in the entrance examination. Admissions shall be

granted strictly on the basis of inter se merit of the candidates

who appeared in the Common Entrance Test and fulfill the other

eligibility conditions prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Nursing

Admission Rules, 2019 and the Regulations of the Indian Nursing

Council, including the educational qualification of passing Higher

Secondary Examination with the prescribed percentage of marks

in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English.

64.The respondent authorities shall notify the schedule of counselling

within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

order and shall complete the entire counselling process

expeditiously. The selected candidates shall be granted a

reasonable period, not exceeding 30 days thereafter, to complete

all admission formalities. The concerned B.Sc. (Nursing)

institutions shall admit such candidates forthwith upon completion

of the counselling process and shall ensure that necessary extra

classes, practical sessions and clinical training are conducted so

50

as to enable the students to complete the prescribed curriculum

and satisfy the minimum attendance and academic requirements

stipulated by the Indian Nursing Council.

65.It is, however, made clear that the directions issued herein are

confined to the extraordinary and peculiar facts and

circumstances obtaining in the present case, namely, the one-time

relaxation granted by the Indian Nursing Council owing to the

exceptionally large number of vacant seats and the peculiar

educational conditions prevailing in the State of Chhattisgarh. This

order has been passed to do complete justice between the parties

and to prevent otherwise eligible candidates from suffering on

account of an action which has been held to be without

jurisdiction.

66.Accordingly, this order shall not be treated as a precedent for any

subsequent admission process or any other academic session. It

is further directed that the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this

order before the competent authorities forthwith for immediate

compliance.

67.As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, and in view of the

findings recorded hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that the

petitioners have made out a case warranting interference under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

68.Consequently, both the writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.215/2026

and W.P.(C) No.512/2026 are allowed with the directions

51

contained in the preceding paragraph of this order. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Yogesh

The date when the

judgment is

reserved

The date when the

judgment is

pronounced

The date when the judgment is

uploaded on the website

Operative Full

22.06.2026 10.07.2026 ------ 10.07.2026

52

Head -Note

The statutory standards prescribed by an authority constituted

under a Central legislation cannot be diluted, altered or supplemented

by the State authorities through executive instructions. Any

administrative directions issued by the State Government inconsistent

with such statutory prescriptions are impermissible and cannot override

the standards framed by the competent statutory body.