CGHC010250172022 2026:CGHC:35786 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3818 of 2022 Order Reserved on: 29.7.2026 Order Delivered on: 13.8.2026 1. Dhaniram Meshram S/o Shri Radheshyam Meshram Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Sudama Nagar, Dallirajhara, Tahsil Daundi, District - Balod (C.G.). 2. Vijay Kumar Gupta S/o Shardha Prasad Gupta Aged About 39 Years R/o Behind Mahila Thana, Near Ashirvad School Bairan Bazar Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 3. Pratap Bhanu S/o Shri Ramcharan Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Near Passport Office Sector - 2, D.D. Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 2. Director Of Medical Education District - Raipur (C.G.). RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 3. Pt. Dindayal Upadhyay Memoriyal Health, Science And Ayush University Chhattisgarh Through The Registrar Uparvara, Atal Nagar, Sector 14, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 4. Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, G.A. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Deeksha Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be called for the record relating to petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction/order to quash the impugned order dated 05.08.2021 Annexure P/1 directing the respondent to allow the petitioners to participate in exam. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 3 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioners were admitted to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy (B.P.T.) course under Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur, in the academic session 2005 and were duly enrolled as students of the said course. At the time of their admission, neither the Rules and Regulations governing the B.P.T. course nor Ordinance No. 133 of the University prescribed any outer or maximum time limit for completion of the course. It is further stated that even in the meeting of the University Committee held on 11.09.2014, convened to resolve issues relating to B.P.T. students, no upper or maximum time limit for completion of the course was prescribed. Subsequently, upon the enactment of the Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University of Chhattisgarh Act, 2008, the B.P.T. course, along with the students pursuing the same, stood transferred to Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University, where the petitioners continued their studies. It is the case of the petitioners that even Ordinance No. 16 framed by the respondent University, which governs the B.P.T. course, does not prescribe any outer or maximum limit for completion of the course. The petitioners have completed the entire course except a few papers of the final semester, namely, petitioner No. 1 is required to clear Rehabilitation Medicine, petitioner No. 2 is required to clear P.T. Neuro and P.T. Cardio, and petitioner No. 3 is required to clear P.T. Cardio and Rehabilitation Medicine. According to the petitioners, they require 4 only one further opportunity to complete the course. However, the respondent University issued the impugned order declaring that students who had completed eight years of the course or who had taken admission prior to the academic session 2013-14 would not be permitted to appear in the examination and that the examination held in July-August 2021 would be their last opportunity. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners submitted representations before the competent authorities, including the State authorities, but no action was taken. Left with no other efficacious remedy, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were admitted to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy (B.P.T.) course under Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Chhattisgarh, and upon the establishment of Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University, Chhattisgarh, in the year 2008, they were transferred to the said University for completion of their course. It is submitted that the respondent University has issued the impugned order dated 08.07.2021, whereby students who have completed eight years of the course have been deprived of the opportunity to appear in the examination, and those admitted prior to the academic session 2020-21 have been directed to complete the course within eight years, failing which, after two examination opportunities in one academic session, they would be deemed to have been rusticated. Learned counsel contends that 5 neither Ordinance No. 133 of Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, under which the petitioners were initially admitted, nor Ordinance No. 16 of Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University prescribes any outer, maximum, or upper time limit for completion of the B.P.T. course. It is further submitted that the impugned order, having been issued merely under the signature of the Registrar as an administrative instruction, cannot override or amend the statutory ordinances of the University, which have the force of law. It is argued that the Education Council is vested only with the power to recommend amendments to the Executive Council and, in the absence of any amendment duly incorporated in the Ordinances, the impugned administrative order is without jurisdiction and contrary to law. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are students of the final semester and are required to clear only a few remaining papers to complete the B.P.T. course, and denial of a further opportunity to appear in the examination would seriously prejudice their academic career and permanently deprive them of obtaining their degree. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 08.07.2021 be quashed and the petitioners be permitted to appear in the remaining examinations in accordance with law. She has placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of “R. Ranjith Singh vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 612 and Miss Tanishka vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and others, WPC 11903/2022 & CM Appeal No. 35190/2022”. 6 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the present writ petition has been instituted on the basis of self-serving and untenable averments made by the petitioners and, therefore, it has become necessary for the answering respondents to place the true and complete facts before this Hon'ble Court so as to facilitate a fair, proper, and effective adjudication of the controversy involved. It is submitted that the petitioners have challenged the order dated 05.08.2021 issued by respondent No. 3, namely, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University, Chhattisgarh, whereby a time limit was prescribed for students admitted to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy (B.P.T.) course prior to the academic session 2008-09 and who had not yet completed the course, requiring them to clear the remaining examinations within the stipulated period. Learned counsel further submits that the entire grievance of the petitioners is directed exclusively against respondent No. 3, which is an autonomous statutory University vested with the authority to regulate academic matters in accordance with its governing statutes, ordinances, and regulations. It is, therefore, contended that respondent No. 3 alone is competent to place the correct factual and legal position before this Hon'ble Court in respect of the impugned order. It is further submitted that the petitioners themselves have acknowledged in the writ petition that the reliefs sought are entirely against respondent No. 3, whereas the answering respondents have merely been impleaded as formal 7 parties, no substantive relief having been claimed against them. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioners were admitted to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy (B.P.T.) course under Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, in the year 2005 and were duly enrolled therein. It is submitted that, upon the enactment of the Chhattisgarh Ayush and Health Sciences University Act, 2008 (Act No. 21 of 2008), Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University, Chhattisgarh, was established as the statutory University to regulate and conduct medical and allied health science courses, and thereafter the petitioners' examinations have been conducted by respondent No. 3. Learned counsel further submits that while the B.P.T. course was initially governed by Ordinance No. 133 of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, which prescribed a duration of four years followed by six months' compulsory internship, respondent No. 3 subsequently framed Ordinance No. 16 to regulate the said course and, in exercise of its statutory powers, amended the same by prescribing a maximum span period of eight years, i.e., double the normal duration of the course, for completion thereof. It is contended that the impugned order has been issued strictly in conformity with the said Ordinance and, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have not challenged the validity or vires of Ordinance No. 16 or its amendment prescribing the maximum span period, and in the absence of such 8 challenge, the consequential administrative order cannot be assailed independently. It is also submitted that the University Grants Commission has framed guidelines prescribing a uniform span period for completion of degree courses, which contemplate only a limited extension beyond the normal duration of the course for clearing backlogs. Even though the B.P.T. course is of four years' duration followed by six months' compulsory internship, respondent No. 3 has granted a much more liberal span period of eight years for completion of the course. Learned counsel contends that, despite the petitioners having remained enrolled for more than twenty years, they are seeking an indefinite and unlimited period for completing the course, which is wholly contrary to academic standards and regulatory discipline. It is further submitted that other professional medical and allied health courses, including B.A.M.S. and B.Sc. (Nursing), also prescribe a maximum span period for completion of the course and, therefore, the prescription of a similar maximum period for the B.P.T. course is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. On these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned order is legal, valid, and in consonance with the applicable statutory provisions and regulatory framework, and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. He has placed reliance upon the judgments in the matters of Amit Kumar vs. Delhi University & Another (LPA No. 956/2013) and Awadesh Kumar vs. Delhi University (LPA No. 258/2016). 9 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record. 7. The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Amit Kumar vs. Delhi University & Another (LPA No. 956/2013), the High Court of Delhi has observed as under:- “18. At the outset we may state that the students cannot be said to have any right to complete the course /programme to which they have sought admission, in whatever time they may deem proper, particularly when the rules of the University provide otherwise. The students having taken admission to a University, are governed by the rules and regulations thereof. They even otherwise have no right to claim that there should be no span period for completing an educational course/programme or as to what the said time period should be or whether there should be any provision of relaxation therein or not. No such right was argued by any of the counsels in spite of our specifically posing the said query. On the contrary the Universities are found to be fully empowered to lay down such span period and/or to determine whether any relaxation with respect thereto is to be given or not. The appellants/petitioner in fact have not even challenged the right of the University to so lay down the span period. The validity/vires of the Appendix II to 10 the Ordinances of the University of Delhi or the LPA No.258/2016 Page 4 of 4 Ordinance 15(xv) of the Jamia Millia Islamia University, both laying down the span period, is not even challenged." "25. On the other hand, we are also mindful of the extreme paucity of educational institutions in the country. In the absence of any span period, students may indefinitely block seats, other facilities and amenities in the educational institutions to the prejudice of those becoming eligible for admission in succeeding years. Allowing an educational course/programme to be completed at any time, without any limitation, may also pose a problem where say the course content has changed. Also, there is generally continuity in the syllabus/curriculum in successive semesters/years of an educational course/programme and a long break interfere therewith, impacting may course/programme.” 8. Likewise, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Awadesh Kumar vs. Delhi University (LPA No. 258/2016), the High Court of Delhi has observed as under:- “6. The ratio laid down in the above decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. As observed by the Division Bench, the span period which is generally found to be double the duration otherwise 11 prescribed for the course, is the outer limit for completing the educational course. In the absence of any provision of relaxation of such span period, no right as such can be claimed by any student to allow to appear for the back papers beyond the span period.” 9. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioners were admitted to and appeared in the Bachelor of Physiotherapy (B.P.T.) course under Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur. However, despite being afforded sufficient opportunities and even after the maximum span period prescribed for completion of the course, they failed to successfully clear the remaining examinations. As per Ordinance No. 133 of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, the duration of the B.P.T. course is four years followed by the prescribed internship, whereas Ordinance No. 16 of Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University prescribes a maximum span period of eight years, i.e., twice the normal duration of the course, for its completion. Admittedly, the petitioners were unable to complete the course even within the aforesaid extended period. The record further reveals that, despite repeated requests made by the petitioners seeking further opportunities to appear in the examinations, the respondent University had already granted adequate opportunities in accordance with the applicable Ordinances. Since the petitioners failed to complete the course within the maximum prescribed period, the respondent authorities were fully justified in 12 declining their request for any further opportunity and in taking consequential action in accordance with the governing statutory provisions. Therefore, no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety can be attributed to the action of the respondent University. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, coupled with the statutory framework contained in Ordinance No. 133 of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University and Ordinance No. 16 of Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Memorial Health Sciences and Ayush University, Chhattisgarh, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to establish any legal or enforceable right warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned action of the respondent University is in consonance with the applicable Ordinances and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting judicial review. 11. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat