1 CGHC010207292026 2026:CGHC:36152-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 694 of 2026 Dr. Pramod Kumar Baghel S/o Late Shri Rajaram Baghel Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer (Kayachikitsa) At Government Ayush College, Raipur (C.G.), R/o House No. 1774/40, Gayatri Nagar, Daganiya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Indravati Bhawan, Post- Rakhi, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary Department Of Medical Education (Ayush), Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Deputy Secretary Department Of Medical Education (Ayush), Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Director (Ayush) Directorate (Ayush), D.K.S. Campus, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Chairman North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 6. Dr. Arunima Kaushik D/o Naresh Kumar Kaushik Presently Posted As Reader (Kayachikitsa), R/o House No. B-1/1, Celebrity Home, Mohbao Bajar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.17 18:19:57 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14 .08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ishan Verma, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State; Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5; and Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 6. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1839 of 2023, Dr. Pramod Kumar Baghel vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 709 of 3 2026 (Dr. Puranjan Singh Armo vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) vide order dated 13.08.2026, observing as follows : “13. At the outset, it may be noted that before the learned Single Judge, the appellant/writ petitioner had merely challenged the advertisement dated 08.02.2023 and sought consideration of his candidature for promotion and further, to hold him entitled for promotion to the post of Reader Panchkarm from the date when his contemporaries were promoted i.e. w.e.f. 16.09.2021. Initially, when the writ petition was iled, the selected candidate i.e. Dr. Gourav Mishra was not arrayed as a party but later on, through amendment, he was arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition which was allowed vide order dated 02.07.2024. On 28.02.2023, the learned Single Judge had observed that any appointment made pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.02.2023 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and the writ petition finally stood dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2026. 14 The learned Single Judge has observed in its order that the principal question that arose for determination was whether the advertisement dated 08.02.2023 issued by the CGPSC providing for direct recruitment to the posts of Reader (Panchkarm) was contrary to the applicable recruitment rules and Government circulars, and whether the appellant could have claimed that the said posts were required to be filled exclusively by promotion and not through direct recruitment. 15 There is no dispute that recruitment to the posts in 4 question is governed by the Chhattisgarh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987, as amended. Schedule-II of the said Rules prescribes that 75% of the posts shall be filled by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. It is also undisputed that there are only two sanctioned posts of Reader in each of the concerned disciplines. Accordingly, applying the prescribed ratio to two posts results in 1.5 posts for promotion and 0.5 post for direct recruitment. The principal contention of the appellant is that in view of the Government circular dated 09.11.2011, the fraction of 0.5 attributable to direct recruitment ought to be disregarded and the promotional quota of 1.5 posts rounded of to 2, thereby making both posts available exclusively for promotion. On this basis, the appellant contends that the impugned advertisement providing for direct recruitment is illegal. This contention, however, cannot be accepted. 16 The recruitment rules are statutory in character and expressly prescribe the proportion of posts to be filled through promotion and direct recruitment. The purpose of such prescription is to maintain an appropriate balance between the two sources of recruitment. An interpretation which effectively eliminates one of the prescribed sources would defeat the scheme and object of the rules. The Government circular dated 09.11.2011, relied upon by the appellant is a general executive instruction and cannot be construed in isolation so as to override or nullify the statutory recruitment rules. More importantly, the State Government had already considered the issue of allocation of fractional posts and, by its decision dated 5 06.10.2007, clarified that rounding of 1.5 posts to 2 and reducing 0.5 post to zero would effectively eliminate the avenue of direct recruitment, which was impermissible. The said decision, having been duly approved by the competent authority, reflects a conscious policy decision to preserve both prescribed modes of recruitment. There is no dispute that the statutory provisions must be interpreted in a manner that advances the object and purpose of the legislation, rather than rendering any part thereof redundant or otiose. Accepting the interpretation advanced by the appellant would effectively exclude candidates seeking appointment through direct recruitment, thereby defeating the quota expressly prescribed for that mode of recruitment. Such an interpretation cannot be countenanced. 17 It is further relevant that the process for framing the new recruitment rules had already been initiated, and the proposal providing for an equal 50:50 ratio between promotion and direct recruitment was duly approved on 04.01.2023. The advertisement dated 08.02.2023 was issued pursuant to and in conformity with the said approved framework. Subsequently, the new Recruitment Rules were notified on 19.06.2023, reaffirming the equal distribution between promotion and direct recruitment. Under these circumstances,the action of the respondents was consistent with the applicable policy and the recruitment framework approved by the competent authority. The same cannot, therefore, be characterised as arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to the governing Recruitment Rules. 18 Furthermore, it is trite law that a challenge to a 6 selection process, without impleading the selected candidates whose rights are likely to be affected, is liable to fail for non-joinder of necessary parties. In the present case, the appellant initially did not challenge the foundational actions culminating in the issuance of the advertisement, including the requisition submitted by the State Government, the relevant seniority lists, and the earlier orders concerning promotion. In the absence of any challenge to these underlying actions, the writ petition, which sought to indirectly assail the recruitment process, could not have been sustained. The contention that the appellant that he has been deprived of his right to consideration for promotion also cannot be accepted. Although the right to be considered for promotion is undoubtedly a valuable right, it does not confer an entitlement to enlargement of the promotional quota by eliminating the quota prescribed for direct recruitment under the recruitment Rules. 19 The interpretation advanced by the appellant is contrary to the statutory scheme and, if accepted, would lead to anomalous and inequitable consequences. The respondents have acted in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules, the policy decision of the State Government, and the requisition duly approved by the competent authority. No arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of any constitutional or statutory provision is, therefore, made out. 20 We do not ind any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and as such, this appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly 7 dismissed.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 709 of 2026, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 709 of 2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 709 of 2026. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 13.08.2026 passed in WA No. 709 of 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan