[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Puranjan Singh Armo vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 April, 2026
1
Digitally NAFR
signed
by
SHAYNA
KADRI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Reserved for orders on : 18.03.2026
Order passed on : 17.04.2026
WPS No. 1569 of 2023
1 - Dr. Puranjan Singh Armo S/o Late Shri Chandan Singh Armo Aged
About 42 Years R/o Sarakanda V. I. P. Colony House No. A/303,
Presently Working As Lecturer, Panchakarm Government Ayurvedic,
College Bilaspur 495001, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Address Ayurved Chikistsaa Kendra M.A. No.
479, Jailer Chaal Khairagarh Road, Chikhali, Jila Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh, 491441, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Public Service Commission Through Secretary, North Block, Sector-
19, New Raipur Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Director Directorate Of Ayurvedic Yoga And Prakriti Chikitsa,
Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Purana Mantralaya Parisa,
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Dr. Gourav Mishra S/o Late Shri Mahesh Mishra, Address Ayurved
Chikistsaa Kendra M.A. No. 479, Jailer Chaal Khairagarh Road,
Chikhali, Jila Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, 491441
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Dr. Pramod Kumar Baghel S/o Late Shri Rajaram Baghel Aged
About 59 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer (Kayachikitsa) At
Government Ayush College, Raipur, (C.G.) R/o House No. 1774/40
Gayatri Nagar Daganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chairman North Block, Sector 19
Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (Chhattisgarh)
2 - The Secretary, Department Of Medical Education (Ayush), Mahanadi
Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Medical Education (Ayush)
Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4 - The Director (Ayush), Directorate (Ayush) D.K.S. Campus Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5 - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through Chairman North
Block, Sector 19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (Chhattisgarh)
6 - Dr. Arunima Kaushik D/o Naresh Kumar Kaushik Presently Posted
As Reader Kayachikitsa R/o House No. B1/1 Celebrity Home Mohbao
Bajar Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Dr. N. K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bole,
Advocate (in W.P.S. No. 1569/2023)
and Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate (in
W.P.S. No. 1839/2023)
For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Advocate
General
For P.S.C. : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate
For Resp. No. 4 (in W.P.S. No.: Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate
1569 of 2023)
For Resp. No. 6 (in W.P.S. No.: Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate holding
1839 of 2023) brief on behalf of Mr. Ratnesh Kumar
Agrawal, Advocate
(Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)
C.A.V. Order
1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is identical in
nature and arises out of the same Advertisement dated
08.02.2023 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service
Commission, both the petitions were analogously heard together.
As the questions of law and facts involved are substantially
similar, they are being decided by this common order to avoid
repetition of facts and to ensure consistency in adjudication.
2. The present writ petitions have been instituted by the respective
petitioners challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of
the Advertisement dated 08.02.2023 issued by the Chhattisgarh
Public Service Commission for direct recruitment to the posts of
Reader in the Medical Education (Ayush) Department.
3. In W.P.S. No. 1569/2023, the grievance of the petitioner is that the
impugned advertisement has been issued on the basis of
outdated Guidelines of the year 2007, ignoring the subsequent
amendment brought into force vide Circular dated 09.11.2011
issued by the Under Secretary, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, whereby the post of
Reader (Panchkarm) was earmarked exclusively as a promotional
post with no provision for direct recruitment. It is thus contended
that the very issuance of the advertisement for direct appointment
to such post is contrary to the prevailing rules and is therefore
illegal and without authority of law.
4. Similarly, in W.P.S. No. 1839/2023, the petitioner has assailed the
same advertisement to the extent it notifies the post of Reader
(Kayachikitsa) for direct recruitment, despite the governing service
rules prescribing that only 25% of such posts may be filled
through direct recruitment and the remaining 75% through
promotion. The petitioner, being the senior-most eligible Lecturer
in the concerned discipline, contends that he has been arbitrarily
denied consideration for promotion due to the action of the
respondents in resorting to direct recruitment in disregard of the
statutory quota. It is further urged that such action reflects clear
apathy and inaction on the part of the authorities in not filling
promotional vacancies in accordance with the applicable rules,
thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioner's service rights.
5. Thus, both the petitions have been filed primarily on the ground
that the impugned advertisement is contrary to the applicable
recruitment rules and amended guidelines, resulting in unlawful
diversion of promotional posts to direct recruitment, and
consequently depriving the petitioners of their legitimate right of
consideration for promotion, rendering the impugned action
arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Hence,
these writ petitions seeking following reliefs :
WPS No. 1569 of 2023 :
"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire record
pertaining to the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to stay the selection
process conducted through Direct
Recruitment for the post of Reader
Panchkarm released through
Advertisement dated 8/02/2023.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to Direct the Respondent to
stop the selection process conducted
through Direct Recruitment for the post
of Reader Panchkarm released through
Advertisement dated 8/02/2023 and
Direct the Respondents consider the
Petitioner for Promotion.
10.4 That, the Petitioner is entitled for
promotion to the Post of Reader
Panchkarm from the date when his
contemporaries were promoted (batch
mates) and therefore, the Petitioner
shall be promoted from the date
16/09/2021.
WPS No. 1839 of 2023 :
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to call for the records
of the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to set-aside /quash
the impugned advertisement published
08.02.2023 by CGPSC with respect to
the post of Reader Kayachikitsa being
contrary to the rules;
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to consider the case of
petitioner for grant of promotion to the
post of Reader Kayachikitsa duly in
accordance with law at the earliest and
to take a decision of the same in time
bound manner, in the interest of
justice.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to grant the petitioner all
the Consequential benefit including the
pay-band, seniority etc. from the date
where the petitioner was entitled for
the promotion;
10.5 That, any other relief/order which
may deem fit and just in the facts and
circumstances of the case including
award of the costs of the petition may
be given."
6. The facts of both the writ petitions, as brought on record, reveal
that the petitioners are duly qualified and experienced persons
serving in the Department of Medical Education (Ayush), State of
Chhattisgarh, and are aggrieved by the action of the respondent
authorities in issuing Advertisement dated 08.02.2023 for direct
recruitment to the posts of Reader in different disciplines,
allegedly in contravention of the applicable service rules and
amended guidelines. In W.P.S. No. 1569 of 2023, the petitioner,
belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (Gond), is a qualified Ayurveda
practitioner holding a Master's Degree in Kaya Chikitsa obtained
in the year 2011 from Government Ayurvedic College, Raipur. He
was initially appointed as Ayurveda Medical Officer through the
Public Service Commission in the year 2011 and thereafter, upon
obtaining necessary permission, was appointed as Lecturer
(Panchkarm) in 2016, where he has been serving with requisite
experience and eligibility for promotion. It is his case that as per
the amended guidelines dated 09.11.2011 issued by the State
Government, there are only two sanctioned posts of Reader
(Panchkarm), both of which are required to be filled exclusively by
promotion after applying the rule of rounding off, and therefore no
post is available for direct recruitment. Despite this, the
respondent authorities issued the impugned advertisement relying
upon earlier guidelines of 2007, thereby depriving the petitioner of
his legitimate promotional opportunity. The petitioner has also
placed reliance on the gradation list and other documents to
demonstrate that one post has already been filled by promotion
and the remaining post is lying vacant, which ought to have been
filled by promotion instead of direct recruitment. It is further the
case of the petitioner that he had made several representations
before the competent authorities, including the Scheduled Tribe
Department and the Health Department, raising his grievance,
however, no effective action was taken, compelling him to
approach this Court. Similarly, in W.P.S. No. 1839 of 2023, the
petitioner is serving as Lecturer (Kayachikitsa) since long, having
been initially appointed in the year 1999 and thereafter transferred
to Government Ayush College, Raipur, where he has continuously
discharged his duties with diligence. As per the final gradation list
dated 01.04.2022, the petitioner is placed at Serial No. 2, thereby
falling within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of
Reader (Kayachikitsa). The service conditions governing the post
are regulated by the Chhattisgarh Lok Swasthya (Bhartiya
Chikitsa Paddhati Tatha Homeopathy) (Rajpatrit) Sewa Bharti
Niyam, 1987, as amended in 2008, which provide that 25% of the
posts are to be filled by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion.
However, it is contended that since only two posts of Reader are
sanctioned, application of the rounding-off principle as clarified in
the Government Circular dated 09.11.2011 results in both posts
being treated as promotional posts. Despite this, the respondent
authorities, while promoting one similarly situated person, failed to
consider the petitioner and proceeded to advertise one post for
direct recruitment, thereby denying the petitioner his fundamental
right of consideration for promotion. It is further stated that even
representations submitted by the petitioner were not duly
considered, and the authorities proceeded to initiate the process
of direct recruitment, including issuance of interview call letters.
Thus, the common factual matrix emerging from both petitions is
that the respondent authorities, in alleged disregard of the
applicable statutory rules and amended guidelines, have issued
the impugned advertisement providing for direct recruitment to
posts which, according to the petitioners, are required to be filled
by promotion. The petitioners, being eligible and falling within the
zone of consideration, claim that such action has resulted in
denial of their rightful opportunity for promotion and is arbitrary,
discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
7. Dr. N. K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dinesh
Kumar Bole, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P.S. No. 1569 of
2023, submits that the action of the respondent authorities in
issuing the impugned Advertisement dated 08.02.2023 for direct
recruitment to the post of Reader (Panchkarm) is wholly illegal,
arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that
the respondents have acted in blatant disregard of the amended
guidelines dated 09.11.2011 issued by the State Government, and
instead have erroneously relied upon the earlier guidelines dated
06.10.2007, which stood modified by virtue of the subsequent
amendment. Learned Senior Counsel submits that once the
amended guidelines have come into force, the same are binding
upon the authorities, and any action taken in contravention thereof
is liable to be struck down. It is further submitted that there are
only two sanctioned posts of Reader (Panchkarm) in the
Government Ayurvedic Colleges at Raipur and Bilaspur, and as
per the applicable Recruitment Rules of 1987, as amended from
time to time, 25% of the posts are to be filled by direct recruitment
and 75% by promotion. However, upon applying the rule of
proportion and the rounding-off principle as clarified in the Circular
dated 09.11.2011, the fractional calculation results in 0.5 post for
direct recruitment and 1.5 posts for promotion. As per the specific
instructions contained in the said circular, where such fractional
figures arise, the promotion quota is to be rounded off to the next
integer and the fraction in the direct recruitment quota is to be
eliminated. Consequently, both the posts of Reader (Panchkarm)
are required to be filled exclusively by promotion. Despite this
clear legal position, the respondents have proceeded to issue the
advertisement for direct recruitment, which is ex facie contrary to
the binding guidelines and hence liable to be quashed. Learned
Senior Counsel further submits that one post of Reader
(Panchkarm) has been lying vacant since 16.09.2021, and the
petitioner, being fully qualified and eligible, is entitled to be
considered for promotion against the said vacancy. It is contended
that despite repeated representations made by the petitioner
bringing the amended guidelines to the notice of the authorities,
the respondents have willfully ignored the same and have chosen
to proceed with direct recruitment, thereby defeating the legitimate
right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion. It is
submitted that the action of the respondents has resulted in grave
injustice to the petitioner. The petitioner, who fulfills all eligibility
criteria and possesses requisite teaching experience, has been
arbitrarily deprived of his right of consideration for promotion.
Instead of convening the Departmental Promotion Committee and
filling the vacant post in accordance with law, the respondents
have initiated the process of direct recruitment, which is not only
contrary to the amended guidelines but also violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel
further submits that the petitioner had also approached the
Secretary, Department of Scheduled Tribe, State of Chhattisgarh,
who, vide communication dated 09.09.2021, took cognizance of
the issue and sought clarification from the concerned
departmental authorities regarding the action taken in the matter.
However, despite such intervention, no response or corrective
action was undertaken by the respondent authorities. This
inaction on the part of the respondents clearly demonstrates their
arbitrary approach and disregard for the applicable rules and
representations submitted by the petitioner. In view of the
aforesaid submissions, it is urged that the impugned
advertisement, to the extent it provides for direct recruitment to
the post of Reader (Panchkarm), is illegal and liable to be
quashed, and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents
to fill the said post strictly in accordance with the amended
guidelines dated 09.11.2011 by considering eligible candidates,
including the petitioner, for promotion.
8. Mr. Ishaan Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
W.P.S. No. 1839 of 2023, submits that the impugned action of the
respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and
violative of the constitutional mandates enshrined under Articles
14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the
authorities have acted with complete apathy and inaction by
failing to consider the legitimate claim of the petitioner for
promotion, despite his undisputed eligibility, and instead have
proceeded to issue the impugned advertisement providing for
direct recruitment, which is contrary to the governing statutory
rules. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been
serving the department with utmost sincerity and dedication since
his initial appointment and has maintained an unblemished
service record throughout. It is further submitted that pursuant to
the transfer order dated 22.11.1999, the petitioner joined his
duties at Raipur on 26.11.1999 and has since then been
continuously discharging his responsibilities to the satisfaction of
his superiors. The long tenure and meritorious service of the
petitioner clearly establish his entitlement to be considered for
promotion. It is further contended that as per the final gradation
list dated 01.04.2022 issued by the competent authority, the
petitioner is placed at Serial No. 2, thereby falling squarely within
the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Reader
(Kayachikitsa). Learned counsel submits that the service
conditions governing the field are regulated by the Chhattisgarh
Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy)
(Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987, as amended in
2008, which clearly prescribe that the post of Reader
(Kayachikitsa) is to be filled in the ratio of 75% by promotion and
25% by direct recruitment. Inviting attention to the factual
position, it is submitted that there are only two sanctioned posts of
Reader (Kayachikitsa) in the department. Applying the prescribed
ratio, 75% translates to 1.5 posts for promotion and 25%
translates to 0.5 posts for direct recruitment. Learned counsel
submits that the issue relating to fractional posts stands settled by
the Government Circular dated 09.11.2011, which provides that
where both promotion and direct recruitment result in 0.5
fractions, preference is to be given to promotion by rounding it off,
and the fractional post in direct recruitment is to be ignored. On
the application of the aforesaid circular, it is submitted that both
the sanctioned posts are required to be filled through promotion,
leaving no post available for direct recruitment. The issuance of
the impugned advertisement providing for direct recruitment is
thus in direct contravention of the statutory rules as well as
binding executive instructions, rendering the same illegal and
unsustainable in law. Learned counsel further submits that the
respondents have acted in a discriminatory manner by promoting
one similarly situated individual, namely Dr. Satyadev Khicariya,
while denying the same benefit to the petitioner, despite the
petitioner being equally placed in the gradation list. Such selective
application of rules is impermissible in law and strikes at the very
root of equality as guaranteed under the Constitution. It is also
submitted that the petitioner possesses all requisite qualifications
and fulfills the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Reader
(Kayachikitsa). Despite this, his representations seeking
consideration for promotion have not been duly addressed by the
authorities, thereby further demonstrating arbitrariness and non-
application of mind. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab and
S.B. Bhattacharjee v. S.D. Majumdar, learned counsel submits
that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Denial of
such consideration, especially in the face of eligibility and
seniority, amounts to a clear infringement of constitutional rights.
Learned counsel further contends that the respondents cannot
justify their action by placing reliance on subsequent Recruitment
Rules of 2022. The legality of the impugned advertisement has to
be examined in light of the rules prevailing at the relevant time,
i.e., the 1987 Rules as amended, and any subsequent
amendment cannot be applied retrospectively so as to defeat the
accrued rights of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that even if
the recruitment process pursuant to the impugned advertisement
has been carried forward or completed, the same would not
validate an action which is illegal at its inception. It is a settled
principle that illegality cannot be perpetuated merely because it
has been acted upon. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is
prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned
advertisement dated 08.02.2023 to the extent it provides for direct
recruitment to the post of Reader (Kayachikitsa), and further direct
the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
promotion strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, along
with all consequential benefits.
9. At the outset, learned State counsel submits that both the writ
petitions, as framed and filed by the respective petitioners, are
wholly devoid of merit, misconceived in law and facts, and are
therefore liable to be dismissed in limine. It is submitted that
pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.02.2023 issued by the
respondent No.2/Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, the
entire process of recruitment was duly undertaken and concluded
in accordance with law. The merit list was published on
17.04.2023, and appointments have already been made pursuant
thereto. In WPS No. 1839 of 2023, it is further pertinent to note
that the selected candidate has already joined on the post of
Reader (Kayachikitsa). Thus, the recruitment process having
attained finality, the present challenge is belated and
unsustainable. It is further submitted that in WPS No. 1569 of
2023, the petitioner has failed to assail the merit list dated
17.04.2023 and has also not impleaded the selected candidates
as party respondents. It is a settled principle of law that once a
right has accrued in favour of selected candidates, they become
necessary and proper parties to any proceedings challenging the
selection process. Non-impleadment of such necessary parties is
fatal to the writ petition, and on this ground alone, the petition
deserves to be dismissed. The core issue raised in both the writ
petitions pertains to the manner of distribution of posts between
direct recruitment and promotion under the applicable
Recruitment Rules. The posts in question, namely Reader
(Panchkarm) in WPS No. 1569 of 2023 and Reader
(Kayachikitsa) in WPS No. 1839 of 2023, are governed by the
Chhattisgarh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and
Homeopathy) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987. As per
Schedule II of the said Rules, 75% of the posts are to be filled by
promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. It is submitted that in
both cases, there are only two sanctioned posts. Applying the
prescribed ratio mathematically would result in 1.5 posts for
promotion and 0.5 posts for direct recruitment. The petitioners
have contended that 1.5 ought to be rounded off to 2, thereby
allocating both posts to promotion and eliminating any scope for
direct recruitment. Such an interpretation is erroneous, arbitrary,
and contrary to the very object of the Recruitment Rules. It is
humbly submitted that the Recruitment Rules must be interpreted
in a pragmatic and purposive manner so as to maintain a balance
between promotional avenues and opportunities for direct
recruitment. Acceptance of the petitioners' interpretation would
completely negate the quota earmarked for direct recruitment and
render it otiose. It is a settled principle that statutory provisions
must be construed in a manner that furthers their object and not
defeats it. Therefore, the fraction of 0.5 earmarked for direct
recruitment cannot be reduced to zero. In this regard, it is
submitted that the State Government had already considered this
precise issue and, vide decision dated 06.10.2007 (duly approved
by the General Administration Department), clarified that rounding
off 1.5 to 2 would eliminate the direct recruitment quota, which is
impermissible. Accordingly, a balanced approach was adopted to
ensure that both streams, promotion and direct recruitment, are
given effect to. The petitioners have placed reliance on a general
communication dated 09.11.2011. It is submitted that the said
communication is general in nature and does not specifically deal
with the posts in question. Moreover, it does not take into account
the specific decision of the State Government dated 06.10.2007,
nor does it indicate any approval from the General Administration
Department. Therefore, the said communication is
inconsequential and cannot override the specific decision taken
by the competent authority in the present context. It is further
submitted that the process for framing new Recruitment Rules
had already commenced in the year 2019. Under the revised
framework, the posts in question were proposed to be filled in the
ratio of 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. The
said proposal was duly approved by the General Administration
Department on 04.01.2023. Consequently, the advertisement
dated 08.02.2023 was issued in consonance with the approved
draft Rules, providing for one post to be filled by direct
recruitment. Subsequently, the said draft Rules have been
finalized and notified on 19.06.2023 as the Chhattisgarh Health
and Family Welfare and Medical Education Department (AYUSH)
(Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2022. The notified Rules
clearly prescribe a 50:50 ratio between promotion and direct
recruitment. Thus, even otherwise, the action of the respondents
in issuing the advertisement and proceeding with the recruitment
cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. It is
submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court without
properly appreciating the applicable legal framework and the
intent underlying the Recruitment Rules. The interpretation sought
to be advanced by the petitioners would frustrate the statutory
scheme and deprive eligible candidates of the opportunity to be
appointed through direct recruitment, which is impermissible in
law. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that both
the writ petitions, being devoid of merit and substance, deserve to
be dismissed.
10. Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent -
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC), submits that
both the writ petitions are misconceived, devoid of merit, and
liable to be dismissed. A bare perusal of the pleadings would
reveal that the entire controversy raised by the respective
petitioners in both petitions revolves around the issuance of
advertisement dated 08.02.2023 for the posts of Reader
(Panchkarm) and Reader (Kayachikitsa), allegedly in
contravention of the circular dated 09.11.2011 issued by the
Health & Family Welfare Department. The petitioners contend that
since the calculation of 75% promotional quota and 25% direct
recruitment quota results in a fraction (1.5 and 0.5 respectively),
the fraction of 0.5 ought to be rounded off to zero and both posts
ought to be filled by way of promotion. On such premise, the
petitioners have sought to challenge the very issuance of
advertisement providing for direct recruitment. It is submitted that
the aforesaid contention is wholly misplaced insofar as the
answering respondent is concerned. The CGPSC is a
constitutional body constituted under Article 315 of the
Constitution of India and discharges a limited and well-defined
role as a recruiting agency. The Commission does not determine
policy, does not frame or interpret recruitment rules, and has no
authority whatsoever to decide the manner of application of quota
between promotion and direct recruitment. The Commission
merely acts upon the requisition sent by the State
Government/concerned department and conducts the selection
process strictly in accordance with the rules and instructions
communicated to it. In the present case, the advertisement dated
08.02.2023 was issued strictly on the basis of requisition received
from the State Government for filling one post each of Reader
(Panchkarm) and Reader (Kayachikitsa) through direct
recruitment. The answering respondent has, therefore, acted
strictly within the bounds of its statutory and constitutional
mandate and cannot be faulted for the same. Any issue with
regard to interpretation or applicability of the circular dated
09.11.2011 or the determination of quota is exclusively within the
domain of the State Government, and the answering respondent
has no role to play in the said aspect. Consequently, the
contentions raised by the petitioners are liable to be answered by
the State authorities and not by the Commission. It is further
submitted that the factual matrix in both the petitions clearly
demonstrates that the recruitment process has already been
completed. The final select list was published on 17.04.2023,
wherein candidates have been duly selected for both posts, and
appointments have been effected. Thus, the selection process
has attained finality. At this belated stage, the challenge to the
advertisement itself is not only untenable but also legally
impermissible. It is pertinent to submit that the foundational facts
leading to the issuance of advertisement have not been
challenged by the petitioners. The petitioners have neither
challenged the requisition sent by the State Government nor the
applicable seniority lists nor the earlier orders pertaining to
promotion. In WPS No. 1569 of 2023, the petitioner's
representations seeking promotion were rejected vide order dated
22.07.2022, which has not been assailed. Instead, the petitioner
has chosen to challenge the advertisement after completion of the
selection process, which is impermissible in law. Similarly, in WPS
No. 1839 of 2023, reliance has been placed on an undated and
unacknowledged representation, which does not inspire
confidence and cannot be made the basis for invoking writ
jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the seniority position and
availability of posts were already crystallized prior to issuance of
the advertisement. The provisional seniority list as on 01.04.2021
clearly reflected the distribution of posts and availability of
vacancy for direct recruitment. The said seniority list has attained
finality, as it was never challenged by the petitioners. The
subsequent promotions granted on 21.10.2022 and 22.11.2022
also remained unchallenged. Thus, the petitioners are now
attempting to indirectly assail the recruitment process without
challenging the foundational and antecedent actions, which is
impermissible. It is submitted that both the writ petitions are
based on hypothetical assumptions and misconceived
interpretations of the circular dated 09.11.2011. It is also relevant
to note that subsequent developments further fortify the stand of
the answering respondent. The new Recruitment Rules, 2022,
notified on 19.06.2023, prescribe a 50:50 ratio between promotion
and direct recruitment for the posts in question, thereby
recognizing and reinforcing the necessity of maintaining a balance
between the two modes of recruitment. The action of issuing
advertisement for direct recruitment is thus consistent with the
evolving policy framework as determined by the State
Government. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted
that the answering respondent has acted strictly in accordance
with law and within the scope of its limited jurisdiction. The
grievances raised by the petitioners do not pertain to any act or
omission on the part of the Commission and are, therefore, wholly
misplaced. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed
that both the writ petitions, being devoid of merit and substance,
deserve to be dismissed.
11. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 in
W.P.S. No. 1569 of 2023 would submit that present writ petition
challenges the selection process initiated through direct
recruitment for the post of Reader (Panchkarm) pursuant to
advertisement dated 08.02.2023, while the petitioner
simultaneously seeks promotion to the said post from a
retrospective date i.e. 16.09.2021. Such a challenge, after
conclusion of the selection process, is misconceived and
untenable in law. It is submitted that the respondent No. 4 was
duly placed in the wait list published on 17.04.2023 by the
CGPSC. Upon withdrawal of candidature by the candidate placed
above him, namely Roopali Bhardwaj, the respondent No. 4 was
moved to Serial No. 1 in the wait list and was subsequently
selected and appointed by the Department vide order dated
29.09.2023. Pursuant thereto, he has already joined his duties on
the same date and is presently discharging his functions. It is
further submitted that the respondent No. 4 is fully eligible and
qualified for the post, possessing the requisite postgraduate
qualification of Ayurved Vachaspati (M.D. Ayurveda) in
Panchkarm, along with relevant teaching experience as Lecturer
from 13.01.2018 to 31.01.2023. His selection has been made
strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and
after due process. It is contended that the recruitment is
governed by the Chhattisgarh Public Health (Indian System of
Medicine and Homeopathy) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment
Rules, 1987, which prescribe a ratio of 75% by promotion and
25% by direct recruitment. With two sanctioned posts, the
mathematical distribution results in 1.5 posts for promotion and
0.5 for direct recruitment. The petitioner's contention that 1.5
should be rounded off to 2, thereby eliminating direct recruitment
altogether, is wholly erroneous and defeats the very object of the
Rules. It is settled that such interpretation cannot be adopted as it
would extinguish the avenue of direct recruitment. It is submitted
that the State Government has already clarified this issue vide
decision dated 06.10.2007, holding that 0.5 cannot be treated as
zero and 1.5 cannot be rounded off to 2 in a manner that nullifies
direct recruitment. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the
communication dated 09.11.2011 is misplaced, as the same is a
general circular and does not override the specific decision of the
State Government duly approved by the General Administration
Department. It is further submitted that the advertisement dated
08.02.2023 was issued only after due approval by the competent
authority on 04.01.2023, and the recruitment process has been
completed in accordance with law. The petitioner cannot be
permitted to advance an interpretation that frustrates the statutory
scheme and unsettle a concluded selection. In view of the
aforesaid, it is submitted that the writ petition, being devoid of
merit and substance, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 in W.P.S. No. 1839 of
2023 would submit that the present writ petition is wholly devoid of
merit and substance and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted
that pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.02.2023, the entire
recruitment process was duly conducted and the merit list was
published, wherein the answering respondent No. 6 has been duly
selected and appointed to the post of Reader (Kayachikitsa). The
selection has been made strictly in accordance with the applicable
rules and after due process. It is further submitted that as per the
Chhattisgarh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and
Homeopathy) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987, 75%
of the posts are to be filled by promotion and 25% by direct
recruitment. With only two sanctioned posts, the calculation
results in 1.5 posts for promotion and 0.5 for direct recruitment.
The petitioner's contention that 1.5 should be rounded off to 2,
thereby eliminating direct recruitment, is erroneous and defeats
the very object of the Rules. Such an interpretation would render
the provision for direct recruitment otiose. It is settled that the
Rules must be interpreted pragmatically so as to preserve both
avenues. Accordingly, 0.5 cannot be treated as zero. The State
Government has already clarified this position vide decision dated
06.10.2007. It is also submitted that the process for framing new
Recruitment Rules had commenced earlier, and the revised
Rules, approved on 04.01.2023 and notified on 19.06.2023,
prescribe a 50:50 ratio between promotion and direct recruitment.
The advertisement dated 08.02.2023, providing for one post
through direct recruitment, was thus in consonance with the
approved framework and does not suffer from any illegality. It is
submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court without
proper appreciation of the applicable rules and seeks to advance
an interpretation which would frustrate the statutory scheme. The
selection of respondent No. 6, being lawful and based on merit,
cannot be interfered with. In view of the above, it is that the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length
and have also perused the pleadings, documents and material
placed on record.
14. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions, the core issue
which arises for determination in both the writ petitions is whether
the Advertisement dated 08.02.2023 issued by the Chhattisgarh
Public Service Commission providing for direct recruitment to the
posts of Reader (Panchkarm) and Reader (Kayachikitsa) is
contrary to the applicable Recruitment Rules and Government
circulars, and whether the petitioners are entitled to claim that
such posts ought to have been filled exclusively by way of
promotion.
15. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the recruitment to the posts in
question is governed by the Chhattisgarh Public Health (Indian
System of Medicine and Homeopathy) (Gazetted) Service
Recruitment Rules, 1987, as amended. As per Schedule-II of the
said Rules, 75% of the posts are to be filled by promotion and
25% by direct recruitment. It is also not in dispute that there are
only two sanctioned posts of Reader in each of the concerned
disciplines. Thus, on a plain mathematical application of the
prescribed ratio, the distribution works out to 1.5 posts for
promotion and 0.5 posts for direct recruitment.
16. The principal contention advanced by the petitioners is that in
view of the Government Circular dated 09.11.2011, the fractional
figure of 0.5 in the direct recruitment quota ought to be ignored
and the promotional quota of 1.5 ought to be rounded off to 2,
thereby rendering both the posts as promotional posts. On such
premise, it is argued that the impugned advertisement providing
for direct recruitment is illegal. However, this Court is unable to
accept the aforesaid contention. The Recruitment Rules, being
statutory in nature, provide for a specific quota between promotion
and direct recruitment. The object of prescribing such quota is to
maintain a balance between the two sources of recruitment. Any
interpretation which completely eliminates one source would
defeat the very scheme and intent of the Rules.
17. The Circular dated 09.11.2011, heavily relied upon by the
petitioners, is in the nature of a general executive instruction. The
same cannot be read in isolation so as to override or nullify the
statutory Recruitment Rules. Moreover, the State Government has
already considered the issue relating to fractional posts and, vide
decision dated 06.10.2007, clarified that rounding off 1.5 to 2 and
0.5 to 0 would completely extinguish the avenue of direct
recruitment, which is impermissible. The said decision, having
been approved by the competent authority, reflects a conscious
policy to preserve both streams of recruitment.
18. It is well settled that statutory provisions must be interpreted in a
manner that advances the object of the legislation and not in a
manner that renders any part thereof redundant or otiose.
Acceptance of the petitioners' interpretation would result in
complete denial of opportunity to candidates seeking appointment
through direct recruitment, which cannot be countenanced. It is
further relevant to note that the process for framing new
Recruitment Rules had already been initiated, and the proposal
providing for a 50:50 ratio between promotion and direct
recruitment was duly approved on 04.01.2023. The advertisement
dated 08.02.2023 was issued in consonance with the said
approved framework. Subsequently, the new Rules have also
been notified on 19.06.2023, reaffirming the balanced approach
between the two modes of recruitment. Thus, the action of the
respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to the
governing policy.
19. Another significant aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the
entire selection process pursuant to the impugned advertisement
has already been completed. The merit list was published on
17.04.2023 and appointments have been made. In W.P.S. No.
1839 of 2023, the selected candidate has already joined the post.
In W.P.S. No. 1569 of 2023, the petitioner has not even
challenged the select list nor impleaded the selected candidates
as party respondents.
20. It is trite law that any challenge to a selection process without
impleading the selected candidates is liable to be dismissed on
the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Furthermore, the
petitioners have also failed to challenge the foundational actions
leading to the issuance of the advertisement, including the
requisition sent by the State Government, the seniority lists, and
the earlier orders relating to promotion. In absence of such
challenge, the present writ petitions, which seek to indirectly
assail the recruitment process, cannot be entertained. The
contention of the petitioners that they have been denied their right
of consideration for promotion also does not merit acceptance in
the facts of the present case. The right to be considered for
promotion is undoubtedly a valuable right; however, such right
cannot be stretched to claim that promotional posts must be
increased by eliminating the quota earmarked for direct
recruitment under the Rules. This Court is of the considered view
that the interpretation sought to be advanced by the petitioners is
not only contrary to the statutory scheme but would also lead to
anomalous and unjust results. The respondents have acted in
accordance with the Recruitment Rules, the policy decision of the
State Government, and the requisition approved by the competent
authority. No arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of constitutional
provisions is made out.
21. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no merit in either
of the writ petitions. The impugned Advertisement dated
08.02.2023 does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
22. Accordingly, both W.P.S. No. 1569 of 2023 and W.P.S. No. 1839 of
2023 are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Shayna JUDGE
