1 2026:CGHC:5904-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8772 of 2025 1 - Jumana Rajas D/o Hakimuddin Rajas Aged About 31 Years R/o Imlipara In Front Of Kesharvani Provision Gali, Gali No.6, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Preeti Chandak D/o Meethala Kela Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Shitla Mandir, Bazarpara, Bemetra (C.G.) 3 - Jarina Siddiqui Hasim Khan Aged About 42 Years R/o Hn-424, Main Road Ramzani Baba Majar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Viyata Chandra C/o Mrinal Kanti Chandra Aged About 37 Years R/o 321, Phase2, Harimodal Nursery School Rajkishore Nagar Lingiyadih, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495006 ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Director Directorate Of Medical Education Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh 3 - Secretory, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 4 - Secretary Rehabilitation Council Of India Nrcp, Colony, Block B Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016 VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.04 10:36:57 +0530 2 5 - Secretary National Medical Commission Pocket 14, Sector- 8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional A.G. For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 03/02/2026 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the constitutional validity of Clause (2.C)(iv) (क) of Recruitment Advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 22.04.2025 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, the Gazette Notification dated 09.09.2024 amending the Chhattisgarh Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazette) Services Recruitment Rules, 1988, and Clause No. 17 of Schedule-III of the Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Services and Service Conditions Rules, 2013, insofar as they prescribe educational qualifications for the post of Clinical Psychologist allegedly contrary to the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking for the 3 following reliefs:- “A. Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring clause (2.C) (iv) (क) of advertisement bearing Recruitment Advertisement no. 2/2025 of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) dated 22.04.2025 as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio, to the extent that they prescribe educational qualification for the post of Clinical Psychologist based on recognition by the National Medical Commission (NMC), in contravention of the qualifications prescribed under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992; B. Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring clause (2.C) (iv) (क) of advertisement bearing Recruitment Advertisement no. 2/2025 of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) dated 22.04.2025 as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio, to the extent that they prescribe educational qualification for the post of Clinical Psychologist as only Post- graduation in Clinical Psychology, whereas, 4 as per the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, under Clause "g" of section 2(ii), Clinical Psychologists are also required to have a Master in Philosophy in Clinical Psychology from a University recognized by the University Grants Commission AND the Rehabilitation Council of India; C. Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring Clause 3, Entry No. 11. Column No. 5 of the Gazette Notification dated 09.09.2024, issued by order and in the name of the Hon'ble Governor by the Special Secretary, Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio, to the extent that they prescribe educational qualification for the post of Clinical Psychologist based on recognition by the National Medical Commission (NMC), in contravention of the qualifications prescribed under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992; D. Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring clause no. 17 of schedule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Medical Education 5 (Gazetted) Services and Service Conditions of Directorate Health Services, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 18/06/2013 as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio, to the extent that they prescribe educational qualification for the post of Clinical Psychologist as Post graduation degree in Psychology from recognized university, rather than from a University recognized by Rehabilitation Council of India; E. Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring clause no. 17 of schedule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Services and Service Conditions of Directorate Health Services, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 18/06/2013 as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void ab initio, to the extent that they prescribe educational qualification for the post of Clinical Psychologist as Post graduation degree in Psychology, whereas the required educational qualification according to the applicable central legislations is Post graduation Degree in Clinical Psychology: F. Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or 6 Direction, directing the respondents to accept RCI-recognized qualifications for the post of Clinical Psychologist in accordance with the statutory provisions under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992; G. Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The facts of the case as emerges from the petition are that, the petitioners are qualified and practicing Clinical Psychologists, duly registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), having obtained their respective qualifications, including M.Phil. in Clinical Psychology, from institutions recognized by the RCI in accordance with the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. The petitioners fulfill the statutory definition of “Clinical Psychologist” as provided under Section 2(g) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and are legally entitled to practice and hold the post of Clinical Psychologist under the prevailing central legislations governing the field. *******The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued Recruitment Advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 22.04.2025 for various posts, including the post of Clinical Psychologist. Under Clause (2.C)(iv)(क) of the said advertisement, the essential educational qualification for the post of Clinical Psychologist has 7 been prescribed as Post-Graduation in Clinical Psychology or any equivalent qualification recognized by the National Medical Commission (NMC). The petitioners, though otherwise eligible and duly registered with the RCI, are aggrieved by the inclusion of NMC-recognized qualifications for the said post, which according to them is contrary to the statutory framework governing Clinical Psychologists. *******The petitioners are further aggrieved by the Gazette Notification dated 09.09.2024 issued by the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, Government of Chhattisgarh, whereby the Chhattisgarh Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazette) Services Recruitment Rules, 1988 were amended, and the post of Clinical Psychologist was added with the educational qualification prescribed as Master’s Degree in Clinical Psychology or any other equivalent qualification recognized by the National Medical Commission. According to the petitioners, the said amendment dilutes the statutory requirements mandated under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the RCI Act, 1992, which exclusively vest the authority of recognition and regulation of Clinical Psychologists with the RCI. *******The petitioners have also challenged Clause No. 17 of Schedule-III of the Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Services and Service Conditions Rules, 2013, which prescribes the qualification for the post of Clinical Psychologist as a Post- Graduate Degree in Psychology along with M.Phil. in Medical and 8 Social Psychology or Medical Psychology. It is the case of the petitioners that the said provision permits persons holding degrees in branches of psychology other than Clinical Psychology, without mandatory RCI recognition, to occupy the post of Clinical Psychologist, thereby running contrary to the definition and qualification prescribed under Section 2(g) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. *******The petitioners contend that the impugned advertisement, notifications, and recruitment rules are ultra vires the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, both Central legislations enacted under the Concurrent List, and therefore prevail over inconsistent State rules. It is alleged that the impugned provisions unlawfully expand eligibility to persons not statutorily recognized as Clinical Psychologists, thereby compromising professional standards, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and adversely affecting the quality of mental healthcare services delivered to the public. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, the impugned Recruitment Advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 22.04.2025, the Gazette Notification dated 09.09.2024 amending the Chhattisgarh Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazette) Services Recruitment Rules, 1988, and Clause No. 17 of Schedule-III of the Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Services and Service Conditions Rules, 2013 are ex facie ultra 9 vires the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. It is submitted that Section 2(g) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 clearly defines a “Clinical Psychologist” as a professional possessing qualifications recognized and approved exclusively by the Rehabilitation Council of India. The State, through subordinate legislation and recruitment advertisements, cannot dilute or override the mandatory statutory qualifications prescribed under Central enactments occupying the field. *******Learned counsel further submits that the National Medical Commission has no statutory jurisdiction to recognize or regulate qualifications for Clinical Psychologists, as the said profession stands specifically governed by the RCI Act, 1992. By permitting NMC-recognized qualifications to be treated as equivalent for the post of Clinical Psychologist, the impugned provisions create an impermissible conflict with Central law, attract the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution, and render the State action unconstitutional. It is argued that when Parliament has enacted a comprehensive regulatory framework for a specialized profession, the State cannot confer parallel or overlapping regulatory authority upon another body in contravention of the parent statute. *******Learned counsel finally submits that the petitioners, being duly qualified and registered Clinical Psychologists under the RCI, possess a legitimate expectation that their statutory qualifications 10 would be accepted for public employment. The impugned provisions not only discriminate against RCI-registered professionals but also pose serious risks to public mental healthcare by allowing unqualified persons to occupy specialized clinical posts. It is therefore prayed that the impugned advertisement, notifications, and rules be declared unconstitutional and struck down to the extent of inconsistency, and the respondents be directed to restrict eligibility for the post of Clinical Psychologist strictly in accordance with the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. *******Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioner No.4 after following the due process of recruitment, has been selected. He further rely upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “The State of Haryana v. Krishan Kumar and others” Civil Appeal Nos. 1725-1731 of 2023, decided on 13th of January, 2026. 5. Per contra, Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that, at the outset that the present writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any infringement of their legal or fundamental rights. It is submitted that the impugned Recruitment Advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 22.04.2025, as well as the amendments carried out in the relevant recruitment rules, 11 have been issued strictly in accordance with law and within the competence of the State under the Constitution of India. *******Learned counsel submits that the petition suffers from suppression of material facts. Petitioner No. 4 had earlier challenged the very same Gazette Notification dated 09.09.2024 by filing WPS No. 956/2025, which was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court after upholding the validity of the said notification in light of Article 254 of the Constitution. The filing of the present petition seeking substantially identical reliefs, without disclosing the earlier adjudication, disentitles the petitioners to any discretionary relief under Article 226. *******Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have misinterpreted Clause (2.C)(iv)(क) of the impugned advertisement. The qualification prescribed therein clearly provides two alternative eligibility criteria separated by the word “OR”. The petitioners admittedly possess a Master’s Degree in Clinical Psychology and therefore fall within the first limb of eligibility itself. Consequently, the contention that the clause prejudices the petitioners or violates any central legislation is wholly unfounded and academic in nature. *******It is further submitted that neither the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 nor the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 prescribes exclusive recruitment qualifications for the post of Clinical Psychologist in State services. The RCI Act primarily deals with regulation, training, and maintenance of a central register of 12 rehabilitation professionals and does not bar the State from prescribing qualifications for public employment. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is a welfare legislation intended to ensure access to mental healthcare services and does not restrict the rule- making power of the State in matters of recruitment. *******Learned counsel submits that public health, hospitals, and recruitment to State services fall within the legislative competence of the State under List II and List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The qualifications prescribed under the impugned rules and advertisement do not conflict with any Central enactment and, in any event, fall within the permissible domain of the employer to determine eligibility criteria. The petitioners having failed to establish repugnancy, arbitrariness, or violation of any statutory provision, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. *******In support of his submission, he would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. v. The State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors.” Civil Appeal Nos. 2164-2172 of 2023, decided on 28th of March, 2023. 6. Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 would submit that the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission has acted strictly in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules notified by the State Government and within the 13 scope of its constitutional and statutory mandate. The impugned Recruitment Advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 22.04.2025 has been issued by the Commission after due approval of the competent authority and faithfully reflects the qualifications prescribed under the applicable service rules. The Commission neither frames policy nor determines eligibility criteria independently, but merely implements the recruitment framework as laid down by the rule- making authority. *******Learned counsel further submits that no arbitrariness, illegality, or procedural impropriety can be attributed to the Commission in issuing the impugned advertisement. The eligibility clause in question provides alternative qualifications in consonance with the notified rules and does not exclude the petitioners from participation. In the absence of any challenge to the statutory competence of the Commission or any allegation of mala fides, the present writ petition, insofar as it concerns Respondent No. 3, is wholly misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. *******In support of his submission, he would also rely upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Tajvir Singh Sodhi” (supra). 7. In response to the reply filed by learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the impugned clause (2.C)(iv)(क) of Advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 22.04.2025 issued by CGPSC, as well as the amendments introduced vide 14 Gazette Notification dated 09.11.2024 and the provisions contained in Schedule-III of the relevant Service Rules, are ex facie contrary to the statutory scheme governing the profession of Clinical Psychology. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 read with the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 mandates that only those persons who possess qualifications recognized under the RCI Act and are duly registered can hold any post or office of a rehabilitation professional, including that of a Clinical Psychologist, by whatever designation called. By prescribing mere post- graduation in Clinical Psychology or an “equivalent qualification” recognized by the National Medical Commission, the State has diluted mandatory statutory requirements, thereby permitting ineligible and unregistered persons to occupy the post of Clinical Psychologist, which is impermissible in law. *******It is further submitted that the preliminary objections raised by the respondent State are misconceived. The petitioners have duly disclosed the filing and withdrawal of earlier WPS No. 956/2025, and the present petition is clearly maintainable in view of the liberty granted by this Hon’ble Court. The reliance placed by the respondents on Article 254 of the Constitution is misplaced, as the issue is not merely of legislative competence but of direct inconsistency with a Central enactment occupying the field and imposing a statutory bar under Sections 11 and 13(2) of the RCI Act, 1992. Any rule, notification, or advertisement enabling appointment of persons lacking RCI-recognized qualifications is 15 ultra vires the parent statute and liable to be struck down. Hence, the submissions made in the writ petition deserve acceptance and the reliefs prayed for merit consideration in the interest of justice. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition with utmost circumspection. 9. Upon thoughtful consideration of the rival submissions and the statutory framework governing the field, we find no merit in the challenge laid by the petitioners. At the outset, it is evident that the impugned Recruitment Advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 22.04.2025 prescribes alternative eligibility criteria, clearly separated by the expression “OR”. The petitioners admittedly possess a Master’s Degree in Clinical Psychology and, therefore, fall squarely within the primary limb of eligibility itself. Consequently, the grievance raised by the petitioners is largely academic and hypothetical, as no prejudice or exclusion has been demonstrated. It is a settled principle of law that courts do not entertain challenges based on speculative apprehensions or academic disputes without demonstrable injury, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12. 10. The contention that the inclusion of qualifications recognized by the National Medical Commission (NMC) renders the impugned provisions ultra vires the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and the 16 Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 is equally untenable. Neither the RCI Act, 1992 nor the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 expressly occupies the field of recruitment qualifications for State services. The RCI Act primarily regulates registration, training, and maintenance of a central register of rehabilitation professionals, while the Mental Healthcare Act is a welfare legislation aimed at ensuring access to mental healthcare services. Neither statute curtails the power of the State, as an employer, to prescribe eligibility conditions for public posts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine SC 344, has categorically held that prescription of qualifications is a matter of policy within the exclusive domain of the employer, and judicial interference is warranted only when such prescription is manifestly arbitrary or violative of statutory provisions, which is not the case here. 11. Further, the plea of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution is misconceived. Repugnancy arises only when there is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between a Central and State law operating in the same field. The impugned recruitment rules and advertisement neither dilute nor negate the statutory recognition of RCI-registered professionals, nor do they prohibit such professionals from being appointed. On the contrary, they widen the pool of eligible candidates, which is a permissible exercise of executive and legislative discretion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 17 SCC 431, has held that unless compliance with one law results in disobedience of another, the question of repugnancy does not arise. 12. Significantly, this Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that Petitioner No. 4 had earlier challenged the same Gazette Notification dated 09.09.2024 in WPS No. 956/2025, which stood dismissed after upholding the validity of the notification. The present petition, seeking substantially identical reliefs, suffers from suppression and amounts to re-agitation of settled issues, thereby disentitling the petitioners from any discretionary relief under Article 226. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481, has unequivocally held that a litigant who approaches the writ court must do so with clean hands and full disclosure, failing which the petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality, repugnancy, or violation of statutory or constitutional provisions in the impugned Recruitment Advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 22.04.2025, the Gazette Notification dated 09.09.2024, or Clause No. 17 of Schedule-III of the Chhattisgarh Medical Education (Gazetted) Services and Service Conditions Rules, 2013. The prescription of eligibility criteria for the post of Clinical Psychologist falls within the legitimate policy domain of the State as an employer and does not 18 infringe upon the statutory scheme of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 or the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. 14. The writ petition, being devoid of merit and founded on misconceived legal premises, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved