The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling, has held that the state government’s power to relax service rules cannot be used to amend a substantive rule governing the method of recruitment. A Division Bench quashed a notification that permitted a “one-time relaxation” for the direct recruitment of Professors in state medical colleges, reaffirming that such posts must be filled exclusively by promotion as mandated by the statutory rules.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal on a batch of writ petitions filed by Associate Professors from various medical colleges across the state. The court found the impugned notification to be ultra vires the Constitution and the Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, all serving as Associate Professors, challenged a notification dated 10.12.2021, issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Medical Education Department. This notification provided for a one-time relaxation to fill vacant posts of Professor and Associate Professor in government medical, dental, nursing, and physiotherapy colleges through direct recruitment via the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission.
The core of the petitioners’ case rested on the Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. According to Rule 6 read with Schedule II of these rules, the post of Professor is to be filled “only by 100% promotion” from the cadre of Associate Professors. The petitioners argued that this statutory mandate could not be bypassed through an executive notification.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Submissions:
Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Mr. Manoj Paranjape argued that the notification was “illegal, arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction.” He contended that Rule 22 of the 2013 Rules, which grants the power of relaxation, extends only to “conditions of service” and not to the fundamental method of recruitment.
Mr. Paranjape emphasized that Rule 6 is a substantive provision that has not been amended. “No amendment can be introduced by way of relaxation to override or supersede a substantive rule,” he argued. He further submitted that allowing direct recruitment would infringe upon the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as they are eligible for promotion and have a right to be considered.
State’s Submissions:
Opposing the petitions, Government Advocate Mr. Sanghrash Pandey defended the notification as a necessary measure. He argued that it was issued under the same constitutional power (proviso to Article 309) as the 2013 Rules themselves.
The state contended that the relaxation was necessitated by the creation of new medical colleges and a substantial increase in sanctioned posts, which far exceeded the number of eligible candidates for promotion. This shortage, the state claimed, would “jeopardize the National Medical Commission recognition and disrupt medical education.” Mr. Pandey asserted that Rule 22 empowers the Governor to relax rules “as may appear just and proper,” including those related to recruitment. He also assured the court that the petitioners’ chances for promotion remained intact as adequate vacancies would still be available when they complete the required three years of service as Associate Professors.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court framed two core issues for determination: whether Rule 22 of the 2013 Rules empowers the state to relax the method of recruitment, and whether the impugned notification was legally sustainable.
After examining the rules, the Bench observed, “From bare perusal of Rule 6(1)(b) of the Rules of 2013 and Schedule II, it is abundantly clear that the post of Professor will be filled up by 100% promotion.”
Analyzing the scope of Rule 22 (Relaxation), the court concluded that it could not be used to override substantive provisions. The judgment stated, “it is abundantly clear that Rule 22 cannot be stretch to the extent of superseding the substantive rules i.e. Rule 6, Schedule II.”
The court underscored that consideration for promotion is a fundamental right. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India and another v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others, (2010) 4 SCC 290, the Bench noted, “It is an accepted legal position that the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion is virtually part of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution.”
The court further held that if the vacant posts were filled by direct recruitment, “the right of the petitioners to consider for promotion on the post of Professors would be deteriorated.”
Invoking a well-settled legal principle, the court reiterated that “if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.” The judgment found that the notification was an attempt to amend the rules through a “mere ‘one-time relaxation’ notification that defeats existing rules” without following the proper legislative procedure.
The Final Decision
Concluding that the notification was unconstitutional and contrary to the service rules, the High Court allowed all the writ petitions.
The court ordered: “The impugned Notification No.F-3-71/2021/55 dated 10.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No.3/Deputy Secretary, Medical Education Department is hereby quashed/set-aside. The respondents are directed to fill up the posts of Professor strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2013, by promotion from eligible Associate Professors.”
