SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Chh) 404

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Manoj Paranjape, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, Government Advocate, Dr.Sudeep Agrawal and Mr.Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocates, Ms.Anmol Sharma and Mr.Rishabh Dev Singh, Central Government Counsel, Mr.Venketesh Pandey, Advocate

The power of relaxation in recruitment rules cannot override substantive mandates for promotion, ensuring adherence to constitutional rights to equality and fair promotion processes.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and Article 16 - Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 - Challenge to notification allowing direct recruitment to Professor posts contrary to recruitment rules mandating 100% promotion - Notification quashed as ultra vires; rules must control recruitment processes. (Paras 4, 6, 23, 25)

(B) Recruitment Procedure - No amendment can be introduced to substantive rules via relaxation; executive notifications cannot override statutory mandates. (Paras 8, 22)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, Associate Professors, challenged the State's notification allowing direct recruitment for Professor posts, violating the Rule 6 stipulating promotions from Associate Professors only. They argue their constitutional right to promotion is being infringed.

Findings of Court:
The court reinforced that the notification contravenes the statutory rules and the petitioners' fundamental rights under the Constitution, mandating strict adherence to established recruitment procedures.

Issues: Whether the State can relax recruitment rules for direct appointments and the notification's legality.

Ratio Decidendi: The power of relaxation cannot supersede prescribed promotion routes; any deviation from statutory rules jeopardizes fundamental rights.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; notification quashed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top