1 CGHC010196492025 2026:CGHC:40454 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3850 of 2025 Sushila Dubey D/o Late Chhannu Lal Aged About 42 Years Currently Posted As Demonstrator At Government Nursing College, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Medical Education, Health Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Principal Govt. Nursing College, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. AG (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 16/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order/letter dated 07.05.2025 passed by respondent No.2, whereby her claim for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) and permission to pursue M.Sc. Nursing has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Demonstrator in Government Nursing College, Ambikapur and had duly RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.09.17 15:41:20 +0530 2 qualified the M.Sc. Nursing Entrance Examination, 2024. It is submitted that despite her qualification and provisional allotment, the respondents have declined to issue the requisite NOC/permission for pursuing the course. Learned counsel further submits that similarly situated employees have earlier been permitted to pursue M.Sc. Nursing and Ph.D. courses and have also been granted leave under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010. It is, therefore, contended that denial of similar benefit to the petitioner is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that mere qualification in the entrance examination does not confer an indefeasible right upon the petitioner to obtain NOC or leave for pursuing higher studies. It is submitted that grant of leave and issuance of NOC are governed by the applicable Rules and administrative requirements. He would further submit that earlier the petitioner obtained permission for prosecuting the basic B.Sc Nursing examination in the year 2017 and even availed the benefit of 2 years study leave and hence, as per Rule 4(5)(3) of the Chhattisgarh Nursing Pathyakram Pravesh Niyam, 2019 (henceforth ‘the Rules 2019’), an inservice candidate who has previously been admitted to any court as in service candidate is renderred ineligible for admission in the subsequent years. He would also submit that the identical issue has already been considered by this Court in WPS No. 4121 of 2025 and other connected matters. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot claim parity merely on the ground that some benefit was allegedly extended to other employees. The petitioner has neither challenged the grant of such benefit to the said employees nor impleaded them as necessary parties. It is further submitted that there can be no 3 claim of negative equality and an alleged benefit granted to another person, if not permissible under the Rules, cannot furnish a basis for claiming the same benefit. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the material available on record, it is quite vivid that while in service, the petitioner applied for NOC in the year 2017 and completed Basic B.Sc Nursing Course and even for that purpose the petitioner had availed Study Leave for the period of two years. Rule 4 (5) (3) of the Rules, 2019 which governs the eligibility of inservice candidates is couched in negative turn. 6. For the sake of convenience, Rule 4(5)(3) of the Rules 2019 is reproduced hereunder:- “ नियम 4 (चार) (अ) एवं नियम 4 (चार) (ब) म उल्लेखित पात्रत शत के होत हुए 1. के वंले वं सेवंरत अभ्यर्थी प्रवंश होत" पात्र हो#गे, जि&न्हो# पार(क्षा वंर्ष+ के 30 अप्र,ले के नियमिमत केम+चार( के रूपा म न्य/तम 5 वंर्ष+ के0 सेवं पा/र्ण+ के0 हो,। 2. ऐसे सेवंरत अभ्यर्थी , जि&के निवंरूद्ध केई आपारमि7के अभि9य& लेम्बि;बत हो, अर्थीवं & निलेनिबत हो, अर्थीवं जि&के निवंरूद्ध निवं9गे(य &<चा लेम्बि;बत हो, अर्थीवं जि&के निवंरुद्ध निकेसे( प्रकेर के0 दण्डात्मके केय+वंहो( के0 गेई हो,. प्रवंश होत" पात्र होB हो#गे। 3. यदिद निकेसे( सेवंरत अभ्यर्थी के पा/वं+ म निकेसे( पाठ्यक्रम म सेवंरत अभ्यर्थी के रूपा म प्रवंश दिदय गेय हो . त पारवंत वंर्ष म प्रवंश होत" वं पात्र होB हो#गे। 7. This court in WPS No. 4121/2025 and other connected matters considered the similar issue and dismissed the said Writ Petitions observing thus at paras 19 to 21 as under:- “19. Equally untenable is the submission that the respondents were bound to issue the No Objection Certificate merely because the petitioners had expressed willingness to proceed on Leave Without Pay without claiming any financial assistance from the State. A No Objection Certificate is only an enabling permission 4 facilitating participation in the admission process. It is not an independent source of right. The entitlement to such permission necessarily remains subject to the governing statutory provisions as well as the administrative discretion vested in the competent authority. 20. It is equally well settled that grant of Extraordinary Leave is not a matter of right. The competent authority is required to consider the request keeping in view the applicable statutory provisions, institutional requirements and administrative exigencies. The materials placed on record disclose that the respondents have also taken into consideration the availability of teaching faculty in the concerned institutions and the necessity of maintaining adequate academic and clinical standards. Such considerations cannot be said to be either extraneous or irrelevant while exercising administrative discretion. 21. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is confined to examining the legality of the decision- making process and this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over an administrative decision. In the present case, the impugned action is founded upon the applicable statutory framework and the respondents have also taken into consideration the relevant administrative exigencies. No arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality or violation of statutory provisions has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference.” 8. This Court has also considered the contention regarding the benefit allegedly extended to other employees and held that the entitlement of an employee has to be examined with reference to the governing statutory provisions and the circumstances of his or her own case. The mere fact that a similar benefit may have been extended to another employee does not, by itself, create an enforceable right to claim the same benefit. The scope of judicial 5 review under Article 226 is also confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process and this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over an administrative decision. 9. In the present case also, the petitioner principally seeks issuance of NOC/permission on the basis of her having qualified the entrance examination and on the ground that similar benefit was granted to certain other employees. However, qualification in the entrance examination, by itself, cannot confer an absolute right to obtain NOC or leave from the employer. Likewise, the alleged grant of such benefit to other employees cannot be treated as a source of entitlement in favour of the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner has not established that the said employees were similarly situated in all material particulars and that the benefit extended to them was itself legally enforceable. 10. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court and for the reasons recorded therein, the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner do not call for a different view in the present case. The petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable right to claim NOC/permission for pursuing the M.Sc. Nursing course as a matter of right. 11. Consequently, this Court finds no ground warranting interference with the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul