Principle Of Parity Applies Even If Earlier Order Was Declared 'Not A Precedent': Orissa High Court

"In the circumstances of the present case and keeping in view the earlier order of this Court dated 13th August 2026 issued in the previous batch cases, we do not see any reason to deprive the Petitioner of the same benefit granted in respect of similarly situated institutions." Orissa High Court, in an impactful ruling delivered on 15th October 2026, held that an earlier order extending relief to similarly placed institutions cannot be ignored merely because it was expressed not to have precedential value, invoking the doctrine of parity under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

A division bench comprising Justice B.P. Routray and Justice Savitri Ratho observed that an order passed in similar matters must guide subsequent cases with identical facts, reiterating that "an order passed by this Court in similar matters cannot be ignored for issuance of similar directions."

The petitioner, Berhampur School of Nursing, approached the High Court seeking a direction to the State authorities for the renewal of its No Objection Certificate (NOC) to conduct its B.Sc. Nursing course for the current academic year. Although the institution had secured NOC renewals in prior academic sessions, it missed the initial deadline for the present session due to procedural difficulties. When the admission cut-off date was subsequently extended from 30th September 2026 to 31st October 2026, the petitioner sought parity with coordinate bench orders that had granted extended filing windows to similarly situated nursing institutions.

The primary question before the court was whether an educational institution can claim parity with an earlier court order permitting late renewal applications upon payment of an additional fee, even when that earlier order was expressly passed as a non-precedential "one-time measure."

Subsequent Extension Of Admission Cut-Off Alters Factual Matrix

Addressing the factual shift in the admission calendar, the bench took note of the timeline changes governing B.Sc. Nursing admissions across the State. The court noted that earlier, the cut-off date for admission had been set for 30th September 2026, which was subsequently extended by the authorities to 31st October 2026. This administrative extension effectively provided a fresh window of opportunity for left-out institutions to regularise their statutory approvals without disrupting the academic schedule.

The judges observed that although the petitioner had been remiss in approaching the court earlier alongside other institutions, the extension of the admission schedule materially altered the context. The court observed that the extension had the legal effect of "giving opportunity and time to apply for grant of renewal of NOC afresh in respect of the left out institutions like present Petitioner."

Non-Precedential Label In Earlier Orders Does Not Bar Parity

The State and Directorate of Medical Education and Training (DMET) opposed the petition by relying on the coordinate bench order dated 13th August 2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7990 of 2026, wherein relief was granted specifically as a "one-time measure" without precedential force. The authorities contended that entertaining the plea would encourage fence-sitters to flood the writ court.

Rejecting the State's objection, the bench invoked the Supreme Court's decision in State of Odisha v. Priyambada Pattanaik (SLP No. 10598 of 2024), which recognized that even where an order states it shall not be treated as a precedent due to peculiar facts, identical facts arising out of the same State warrant consistent judicial treatment. The bench underscored that judicial consistency demands that like cases be decided alike.

"Thus, as per the principles of parity, we are inclined to extend similar benefit in favour of the Petitioner."

Stringent Penal Costs Imposed For Delay And Lack Of Due Diligence

While extending relief on the ground of parity, the High Court refused to let the institution off without consequence for its administrative laxity. The court highlighted that the petitioner had shown a distinct lack of promptness in initiating the renewal process within the original schedule. To balance institutional equity against procedural discipline, the bench enhanced the penal costs beyond what had been charged from earlier applicants.

The bench directed the petitioner to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 60,000 over and above the regular prescribed renewal fees, as opposed to the Rs. 50,000 imposed in the previous batch. The court observed that the petitioner was bound to pay the extra sum precisely because it "did not justify any diligent attempt to apply before the last date fixed for the purpose."

Time-Bound Directions Issued To Authority For Final Disposal

Fixing a peremptory schedule to prevent interference with the approaching admission cut-off date, the bench granted the petitioner a strict window of three days to tender its renewal application. The court ruled that the application could be submitted either through the official e-Portal or physically, on or before 17th October 2026 positively, with no further extensions permissible under any circumstances.

The court directed the regulatory authorities to act promptly upon receipt of the application, mandate compliance in accordance with prevailing rules, and render a final decision on or before 27th October 2026 to ensure the institution's eligibility is determined before the admission process concludes on 31st October 2026.

Disposing of the writ petition, the High Court reaffirmed that where statutory deadlines are administratively extended, the constitutional principle of parity under Article 226 precludes the State from arbitrarily denying similar consideration to delayed applicants. The ruling establishes that restrictive clauses stripping orders of precedential weight cannot be deployed to foster selective inequality among identically situated institutions.

Date of Decision: 15th October 2026