[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Shivam Sonwani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15073-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 208 of 2026
Shivam Sonwani S/o G. K. Sonwani Aged About 38 Years Address- Qtr
No. 2g, Street M P R Zone- 01, Sector- 11, Khursipar, Bhilai, Distt.-
Durg, (C.G.), Pin Code- 490011
... Appellant
ROHIT
KUMAR
versus
CHANDRA
Digitally
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Health And Family
Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal
signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
CHANDRA
Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492002
2 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission North Block, Sector- 19,
Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh- 492002
3 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through- Exam Controller,
North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh- 492002
4 - Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidyalaya Throgh- Vice Chancellor, Raipur
Naka, Durg (C.G.)- 491001
5 - Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidyalaya Through - Registrar (Academic),
Raipur Naka, Durg, (C.G.) - 491001
... Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant : Mr. Sateesh Kumar Sagar, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
01.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Sateesh Kumar Sagar, learned counsel for the
applicants. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government
Advocate, appearing for the State / respondent No.1, Dr. Sudeep
Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3
and Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel, appearing for
respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 15.01.2026
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.216 of 2026
(Shivam Sonwani vs. State of Chhattisgarh others), whereby,
the writ petition filed by writ petitioner / appellant herein has been
dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that
pursuant to advertisement dated 22.4.2025, Annexure P-1, issued
by appointment respondent No.2 inviting applications for
appointment on various posts including of Clinical Psychologist
and Counselor Psychiatry. In pursuance of aforesaid
advertisement, the petitioner submitted online application form
being qualified for the posts of Clinical Psychologist and
Counselor Psychiatry. Communication dated 09.10.2025 was
issued calling upon petitioner to produce all relevant documents
for verification on scheduled date and pursuant thereto, petitioner
appeared before respondent concerned and produced all original
documents including educational testimonials. After verification of
documents, list of shortlisted candidates was published on
31.12.2025, but petitioner was not shortlisted for interview, which
led to filing of writ petition being WPS No. 216 of 2026 before this
Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge vide impugned order dated 15.01.2026. Hence, this
appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the
impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is
contrary to law and facts on record and suffers from patent errors
apparent on the face of the record. He further argued that the
learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that State Government
Universities in Chhattisgarh do not offer a separate degree titled
"M.A. Clinical Psychology," and therefore penalizing the Appellant
on the basis of nomenclature is arbitrary and violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the
Appellant possesses a Master's degree in Psychology with core
specialization in Clinical Psychology and Counseling, and ignoring
such substantive qualification in favor of a rigid and hyper-
technical interpretation defeats the doctrine of reasonable
classification and the principle of "substance over form." He also
argued that the learned Single Judge further erred in overlooking
the statutory framework under Section 2(g) of the Mental
Healthcare Act, 2017, which recognizes individuals with a
postgraduate degree in Psychology within the ambit of Clinical
Psychologists, thereby rendering the rejection legally
unsustainable. It is further submitted that the exclusion of the
Appellant after document verification, without affording any
opportunity of hearing or passing a reasoned order, is violative of
the principles of natural justice and the doctrine of legitimate
expectation. He contended that the Respondent State has
adopted inconsistent standards by recognizing similar
qualifications for analogous posts in other departments, thereby
subjecting the Appellant to hostile discrimination in violation of
Article 14. Additionally, the failure to constitute an expert body to
assess the Appellant's specialized academic curriculum renders
the decision arbitrary and uninformed. He lastly submitted that the
learned Single Judge also failed to consider binding judicial
precedents mandating purposive and contextual interpretation of
qualifications, thereby imposing an unreasonable and
impracticable standard.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is just, proper, and
in accordance with law, and does not warrant any interference.
The eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement clearly
required a specific qualification, and the Appellant admittedly does
not possess a degree titled "M.A. Clinical Psychology." He further
submitted that it is well settled that eligibility conditions must be
strictly construed and cannot be relaxed or interpreted liberally by
the Court. He contended that the contention of the Appellant that
nomenclature should be ignored is misconceived, as recruitment
must be conducted in terms of the notified rules to ensure
uniformity and fairness. He further contended that the reliance on
the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is misplaced, as the said statute
operates in a different field and does not govern recruitment to the
post in question. It is further submitted that no case of
arbitrariness, discrimination, or violation of Articles 14 and 16 is
made out, and the rejection of candidature is strictly in
accordance with the prescribed norms.
6. Learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 / PCS
submitted that the PSC, being a constitutional authority, has
conducted the selection process strictly in accordance with the
terms of the advertisement and applicable rules, leaving no scope
for deviation. The Commission is bound by the eligibility criteria as
notified and does not have the authority to reinterpret or dilute the
same by examining equivalence of qualifications unless expressly
provided. The Appellant, not possessing the requisite prescribed
degree, was rightly found ineligible at the stage of document
verification. It is further submitted that the process adopted is
transparent, objective, and uniformly applied to all candidates,
and therefore no allegation of arbitrariness or discrimination can
be sustained. The claim regarding lack of opportunity of hearing is
also untenable, as rejection at the stage of verification based on
objective criteria does not necessitate a prior hearing.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 submitted
that the University has no role in the recruitment process or
determination of eligibility criteria for the post in question. The
degrees conferred by the University are in accordance with its
approved curriculum and nomenclature, and it is not within the
domain of the University to classify or equate such degrees for the
purpose of recruitment under a separate authority. He further
argued that the Appellant's degree is duly recognized as "M.A.
Psychology," and any claim regarding its equivalence to "M.A.
Clinical Psychology" falls outside the purview of the University.
Therefore, no liability or arbitrariness can be attributed to the
University in the present matter, and the challenge, insofar as it
concerns the University, is wholly misconceived.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.
9. The Appellant challenges the order of the learned Single Judge,
whereby his writ petition seeking recognition of his M.A.
Psychology degree as equivalent to an M.A. Clinical Psychology
degree for eligibility to a State Government post was dismissed.
The Appellant contends that he possesses substantive
specialization in Clinical Psychology and Counseling, and
exclusion on the basis of nomenclature violates Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution.
10. The Court has carefully examined the advertisement, eligibility
criteria, and material on record. The advertisement expressly
requires a degree titled "M.A. Clinical Psychology." The Appellant
holds a degree titled "M.A. Psychology" with clinical specialization,
but no statutory or regulatory provision recognizes this as
equivalent to the prescribed degree. The principles of strict
eligibility for recruitment, consistently upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Satyawati Sharma (AIR
2012 SC 1493) and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(2006) 4 SCC 1, mandate that a candidate must possess the
prescribed qualification unless equivalence is formally recognized.
11. The Court also notes that the PSC and Respondent authorities
have applied the eligibility criteria uniformly. While the Appellant
claims that his specialization confers substantive competence, the
recruitment rules are explicit in their requirement, and allowing
equivalence in this context would result in deviation from the
objective standards of fairness and uniformity. Allegations of
discrimination or violation of Articles 14 and 16 cannot succeed
where the prescribed norms are applied equally to all candidates.
Principles such as "substance over form" or references to the
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, are not sufficient to alter the
mandatory eligibility conditions in recruitment.
12. In view of the above, the Court finds no merit in the appeal. The
learned Single Judge has correctly dismissed the writ petition, and
there is no legal basis to interfere with the order.
13. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
