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 submit that there are two Directorates under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, one is Directorate of Health Services (DHS) and second is Directorate of Medical Education (DME) and as per the recruitment rules of Staff Nurse in Directorate of Health Services i.e. the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non-ministerial Para-Medical and Nursing (Directorate of Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013, the candidates who have the qualification of Diploma in General Nursing Midwifery (GNM) or B.Sc. (Nursing) or Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing course, are eligible for appointment on the post of Staff Nurse. But in the Department of Medical Education which comes under the same Ministry of Health, the candidates who have the qualification of Diploma in General Nursing Midwifery (GNM) are not eligible for the post of Staff Nurse, which is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But in the Department of Medical Education which comes under the same Ministry of Health, the candidates who have the qualification of Diploma in General Nursing Midwifery (GNM) are not eligible for the post of Staff Nurse, which is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that in AIIMS, Raipur and in other medical colleges of other States, the persons who have qualification of Diploma in General Nursing Midwifery (GNM) are also eligible for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse and Nursing Officer and as per the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, the General Nursing Midwifery (GNM) is a recognised qualification in nursing and therefore exclusion of GNM Course for the post of Staff Nurse is also violative of Section 10 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2006) 3 SCC 434 to buttress his submission. 5. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents No.1, 2 & 4, would submit that prescription of qualification is the sole prerogative of the State Government while enacting a rule under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 is not to prescribe requisite qualification for recruitment to any particular post as the said power emanates from Article 309 of the Constitution, therefore, to suggest that any recruitment rule is violative of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, would be a farcical. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade , (2019) 6 SCC 362 to submit that the essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide and it is neither arbitrary nor contrary to any of the provisions of the Constitution of India, nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He would further rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank v. Anit Kumar Das , (2021) 12 SCC 80 and submit that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record meticulously and carefully as well. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record meticulously and carefully as well. Scope of interference in Rule 7. A Statute is construed so as to make it effective and operative on the principle expressed in the maxim “ut res magis valeat quam pereat”. Therefore, a presumption that the Legislature does not exceed its jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing that the Act is not within the competence of the Legislature, or that it has transgressed other constitutional mandates, such as those relating to fundamental rights, is always on the person who challenges its vires. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 12 th Edition, page 592.) 8. It is a settled principle of law that the Statute enacted by the Parliament or State Legislature cannot be declared unconstitutional lightly. The Court must be able to hold beyond any iota of doubt that the violation of the constitutional provisions was so glaring that the legislative provisions under challenge cannot stand. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu and another v. P. Krishnamurthy and others , (2006) 4 SCC 517 , recollected the following principles while adjudging the validity of subordinate legislation, including regulations: “15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognised that a subordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds: (a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation. (b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India. (d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act. (e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment. (f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules).” 10. (d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act. (e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment. (f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules).” 10. In the matter of Shayara Bano v. Union of India , (2017) 9 SCC 1 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down a proposition that manifest arbitrariness needs to be shown to attack a legislation under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and observed as under:- "101. It will be noticed that a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641 ; Para 78 stated that it was settled law that subordinate legislation can be challenged on any of the grounds available for challenge against plenary legislation. This being the case, there is no rational distinction between the two types of legislation when it comes to this ground of challenge under Article 14. The test of manifest arbitrariness, therefore, as laid down in the aforesaid judgments would apply to invalidate legislation as well as subordinate legislation under Article 14. Manifest arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are, therefore, of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness as pointed out by us would apply to negative legislation as well under Article 14." Rule in Question 11. In exercise of Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 2012, Schedule III has been enacted for direct recruitment on the post of Staff Nurse/Nursing Staff for which the qualification prescribed is as under (English translated copy): - Schedule-III (See Rule 8) Age for Direct Recruitment and Eligibility 12. A careful perusal of the aforesaid Schedule of the Rules of 2012 would show that for the post of Staff Nurse in the Department of Medical Education, the candidate must hold either B.Sc. (Nursing) or Post Basic (B.Sc. A careful perusal of the aforesaid Schedule of the Rules of 2012 would show that for the post of Staff Nurse in the Department of Medical Education, the candidate must hold either B.Sc. (Nursing) or Post Basic (B.Sc. Nursing) course and should have registered with the Central/State Nursing Council, and Diploma in General Nursing Midwifery (GNM) has not been included which is the genesis for questioning the constitutional validity of the Rules of 2012. 13. In Sandeep Shriram Warade's case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide and the court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, and observed as under: - "9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appreciate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same." 14. Similarly, in Anit Kumar Das's case (supra), the Supreme Court has held that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the courts to consider and assess, and observed as under: - "17.3. Similarly, in Anit Kumar Das's case (supra), the Supreme Court has held that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the courts to consider and assess, and observed as under: - "17.3. Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an institution or an industry or an establishment as the case may be. The courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts. In the present case, prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible and the candidate must have passed 12 th standard is justified and as observed hereinabove, it is a conscious decision taken by the Bank which is in force since 2008. Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred in directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent-original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon, though he as such was not eligible as per the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement." 15. As such, the educational qualification for Staff Nurse/ Nursing Staff including B.Sc. (Nursing) or Post Basic (B.Sc. Nursing) course has been prescribed by the appropriate rule-making authority for direct recruitment on the said post. 16. The Rules of 2012 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In order to adjudicate the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provision of the Rules of 2012, it would be expedient to notice Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which provides as under: - “ 309. 16. The Rules of 2012 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In order to adjudicate the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provision of the Rules of 2012, it would be expedient to notice Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which provides as under: - “ 309. Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State .—Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State: Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act.” 17. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the object of Article 309 of the Constitution is that matters relating to Government service should be regulated by legislation (see Ramanatha v. State of Kerala , AIR 1973 SC 2641 ), and until such legislation is available, they should be governed by Rules made under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Rules so framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution must be reasonable, fair and not unjust if they are to survive the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (see Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P. , (1980) 4 SCC 226 , State O f U.P. and another v. Ramgopal Shukla, (1981) 3 SCC 1 and State of Mysore v. M.H. Krishna Murthy and others , (1973) 3 SCC 559 ). 18. 18. The main thrust on behalf of the petitioners is that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Chhattisgarh) has two Directorates namely, Directorate of Health Services (DHS) and Directorate of Medical Education (DME) and recruitment of Staff Nurse in Directorate of Health Services is governed by the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non-ministerial Para- Medical and Nursing (Directorate of Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013, in which the candidates who have the qualification of Diploma in General Nursing Midwifery (GNM) or B.Sc. (Nursing) or Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing course, are eligible for appointment on the post of Staff Nurse. Therefore, the Rules of 2012 which is prevailing for appointment of Staff Nurse in the Department of Medical Education is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Staff Nurse in the Department of Health Services, Chhattisgarh and the States of M.P., U.P. and AIIMS includes Diploma in GNM. It is also to be noticed that the nature and scope of work in Department of Medical Education and Department of Health Services is quite different. In Department of Health Services (DHS), the nature and scope of work is limited to providing nursing services, whereas in Department of Medical Education (DME), the nature and scope of work is not limited to providing nursing services, but can also be extended to providing teaching services as well for which at least Staff Nurse must be graduate in B.Sc. (Nursing) or Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing). The Rules of 2012 have been framed not only to cater Medical Colleges, but also Nursing Colleges and other colleges relating to Medical Education such as Ayurveda, Dental, etc.. Furthermore, in Department of Health Services (DHS), the promotional post from Staff Nurse is Nursing Sister which only requires 5 years of experience on the post of Staff Nurse, whereas in Department of Medical Education (DME), two promotional avenues are available to Staff Nurse, one is from Staff Nurse to Nursing Sister with 5 years experience and another is Staff Nurse to Sister Tutor requiring minimum educational qualification of B.Sc. (Nursing) or Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) or Training of Sister Tutor along with 5 years of experience. Therefore, merely because higher qualification of B.Sc. (Nursing) and Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) or Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) or Training of Sister Tutor along with 5 years of experience. Therefore, merely because higher qualification of B.Sc. (Nursing) and Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) has been prescribed for the post of Staff Nurse under the Rules of 2012, the same cannot be termed as arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. The next ground raised on behalf of the petitioners is, the impugned provision prescribing educational qualification for the post of Staff Nurse/Nursing Staff in Serial No.1 of Schedule III to sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2012 is inconsistent with Section 10 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, which states as under: - " 10. Recognition of qualifications .—For the purposes of this Act, the qualifications included in Part I of the Schedule shall be recognised qualifications, and the qualifications included in Part II of the Schedule shall be recognised higher qualifications. (2) Any authority within the States which, being recognised by the State Government in consultation with the State Council, if any, for the purpose of granting any qualification, grants a qualification in general nursing, midwifery, auxiliary nursing-midwifery health visiting or public health nursing, not included in the Schedule may apply to the Council to have such qualification recognised, and the Council may declare that such qualification, or such qualification only when granted after a specified date shall be a recognised qualification for the purposes of this Act. *** *** *** ***" 20.The Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 is an Act to constitute an Indian Nursing Council in order to establish a uniform standard of training for nurses, midwives and health visitors. Section 10(1) of the said Act states that for the purposes of this Act, the qualifications included in Part I of the Schedule shall be recognised qualifications, and the qualifications included in Part II of the Schedule shall be recognised higher qualifications. Section 10(1) of the said Act states that for the purposes of this Act, the qualifications included in Part I of the Schedule shall be recognised qualifications, and the qualifications included in Part II of the Schedule shall be recognised higher qualifications. The Act is not to prescribe requisite qualification for recruitment to any particular post, in the present case, for the post of Staff Nurse/Nursing Staff, as the said power has been exercised by the rule-making authority in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and therefore to contend that the Rules of 2012 prescribing essential educational qualification for the post of Staff Nurse/ Nursing Staff is violative of Section 10 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, would be inappropriate, as it is the sole prerogative of the rule-making authority/employer to prescribe essential educational qualification as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sandeep Shriram Warade's case (supra) and Anit Kumar Das's case (supra). 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the impugned rule is neither manifest arbitrary nor it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Comparison of a rule in other Department or other State cannot be a ground to declare a subordinate legislation arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 22.Consequently, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).