2025 Supreme(Chh) 388
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ.
Deepti Tiwari, D/o Shri Narendra Tiwari - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Medical Education - Respondent
WPS No. 4626 of 2022
Decided On : 14-10-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Employment
Act Referred
Chhattisgarh Medical Education Department Class III Nursing Service Recruitment Rules : R.8(2)
INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL ACT : S.10
Headnote
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Presumption of constitutionality of subordinate legislation; burden on petitioners to show invalidity. (Paras 6, 9)
(C) Employer's discretion in setting qualifications for posts upheld by Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 13, 14)
(D) Exclusion of GNM not deemed arbitrary as scope of work in differing departments varies. (Paras 18, 21)
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mateen Siddiqui and Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to educational qualifications for nursing post (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on qualifications as prerogative of the employer (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. principles of statutory interpretation and burdens of proof (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. legislative authority under article 309 and its implications (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. compatibility of rules with indian nursing council act (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. validity of the impugned rule upheld (Para 21) |
| 7. writ petition dismissed with costs (Para 22) |
ORDER :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the constitutional validity of Serial No.1 of Schedule III to sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Medical Education Department Class III Nursing Service Recruitment Rules, 2012 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2012’) (Annexure P-1), whereby educational qualification has been prescribed for the post of Staff Nurse/Nursing Staff and also eventually challenged the advertisement dated 9-6-2022 (Annexure P-2) issued for appointment of 176 posts of Staff Nurse in accordance with the Rules of 2012 excluding the GNM Course for the said post of Staff Nurse/Teaching Staff.
2. The petitioners, who hold 3 year diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery, have called in question the aforesaid rules as well as the impugned advertisement branding the same as discriminatory and manifestly arbitrary, as they are holding 3 year diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM). The case of the petitioners is that the minimum requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Staff Nurse in the Department of Health Services of the State of Chhattisgarh includes GNM Diploma Course. It is the further case of the petitioners that the minimum requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Staff Nurse in Government Medical College, Ratlam (M.P.); Government Medical College, Jabalpur (M.P.); AIIMS, Delhi and other AIIMS, includes GNM Diploma Course. It is also the case of the petitioners that GNM is a qualification recognised by the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 and therefore qualification prescribed in Serial No.1 of Schedule III to sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2012 is inconsistent with the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 contrary to Section 10 of the said Act of 1947 and their work and duties as Staff Nurse in both the Directorates under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare i.e. the Directorate of Health Services and the Directorate of Medical Education are one and same and therefore exclusion of GNM Diploma Course for appointment on the post of Staff Nurse/Nursing Staff is manifestly arbitrary and liable to be struck down being violative of Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India. Alternatively, it has been pleaded that the respondents be directed to insert General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) as one of the educational qualifications for the post of Staff Nurse in Serial No.1 of Schedule III to sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2012.
3. Return has been filed on behalf of the State/respondents No.1, 2 & 4 stating inter alia that prescription of qualification for a particular post is the prerogative of the employer in exercise of power conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it is neither ultra vires nor arbitrary or unreasonable, it is in accordance with law and it is within the right of the employer/State Government to prescribe qualification for a post which can neither be challenged nor termed as unreasonable. It is further stated that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of any subordinate legislation and none of the grounds for questioning legality, validity and correctness of the said subordinate legislation is made out in favour of the petitioners and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submi

