HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ., RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, JJ.
Dr. Shashikala Kosam, W/o. Ashish Kumar Kosam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department – Respondent
WPS No. 93 of 2022, WPS No. 436 of 2022, WPS No. 7799 of 2022, WPS No. 114 of 2022, WPS No. 232 of 2022, WPS No. 1342 of 2022,
Decided On : 12-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to notification based on recruitment rules. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. argument against relaxation of recruitment rules. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 19) |
| 3. overview of the core legal issues. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. supreme court emphasizes statutory compliance in recruitment. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. writ petitions allowed, notification quashed. (Para 25) |
order :
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1. Heard Mr.Manoj Paranjape, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPS Nos.93/2022 & 114/2022, Mr.Vikas Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPS Nos.232/2022 and 436/2022, Mr.Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPS No.1342/2022, Mr.Ghanshyam Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPS No.7799/2022, Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State, Dr.Sudeep Agrawal & Mr.Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CGPSC, Ms.Anmol Sharma & Mr.Rishabh Dev Singh, learned Central Government Counsel of the respondent-Union of India and Mr.Venketesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-National Medical Commission.
2. Since common question of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, they were clubbed and heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Leading case is WPS No.93/2022
3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-
“1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the notification dated 10.12.2021 (Annex.P/1) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Medical Education Department and the respondent authorities may further be directed to fillup the vacant posts of Professors Medical Colleges of the State of Chhattisgarh only in accordance with Rule 6, Schedule II of the Rules of 2013.
2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. Facts of the case are that the petitioners are serving as Associate Professors in various medical colleges across the State of Chhattisgarh. Initially they were appointed as Assistant Professors and later on promoted as Associate Professors. Their grievance is identical and arises from a common cause of action, leading to the filing of this joint petition. The petitioners challenge the notification dated 10.12.2021 issued by respondent No.3, which provides a one-time relaxation for filling vacant posts of Professor through direct recruitment, contrary to the established recruitment procedure.
5. The State Government while exercising the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India has notified/made the Rules relating to the regularization of recruitment into Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Services and Service Conditions of Directorate Health Services, Health and Family Welfare Department, known as Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 (hereinafter called as ‘Rules of 2013’).
6. The recruitment Rules of 2013 clearly provides that the post of Professor can be filled up only by 100% promotion. It is admitted position that neither the Rules of 2013 have been amended or any amendment has been carried out to that effect, even no executive instructions have been issued by the State Government amending either Rule 6 or Schedule II of the Rules of 2013.
7. Respondent No.3 has issued the notification dated 10.12.2021 (Annexure P-1), whereby one time relaxation has been provided for filling up the vacant posts of Professors, by direct recruitment. No such amendment can be carried out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The State Government cannot issue a notification to overcome from the substantive rule. No amendment can be introduced or carried out to supersede the substantive Rules of 2013. The Deputy Secretary, Medical Education Department ha


Union of India and another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others
The power of relaxation in recruitment rules cannot override substantive mandates for promotion, ensuring adherence to constitutional rights to equality and fair promotion processes.
The amendment mandating a Bachelor's Degree for certain promotions was constitutionally valid, emphasizing the employer's prerogative to set qualification standards related to job responsibilities.
Recruitment - plea raised by the petitioners is fallacious - As mere acquiring of qualification at a relevant point of time cannot give rise to an expectation, much less, legitimate expectation of ap....
The power of relaxation of recruitment rules can be invoked to meet a particular hardship even in an individual case, provided it is exercised for justifiable reasons and not arbitrarily, and the cou....
Point of law: Required exercise in terms of this order shall be carried out and completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of furnishing a ce....
The court ruled that administrative cancellations of provisional admissions in medical education must adhere to constitutional principles, and no vested rights arise from provisional allotments under....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.