1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 18.03.2026 Order passed on : 17.04.2026 WPS No. 1569 of 2023 1 - Dr. Puranjan Singh Armo S/o Late Shri Chandan Singh Armo Aged About 42 Years R/o Sarakanda V. I. P. Colony House No. A/303, Presently Working As Lecturer, Panchakarm Government Ayurvedic, College Bilaspur 495001, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Address Ayurved Chikistsaa Kendra M.A. No. 479, Jailer Chaal Khairagarh Road, Chikhali, Jila Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, 491441, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Public Service Commission Through Secretary, North Block, Sector- 19, New Raipur Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Directorate Of Ayurvedic Yoga And Prakriti Chikitsa, Unani Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Purana Mantralaya Parisa, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dr. Gourav Mishra S/o Late Shri Mahesh Mishra, Address Ayurved Chikistsaa Kendra M.A. No. 479, Jailer Chaal Khairagarh Road, Chikhali, Jila Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, 491441 --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1839 of 2023 1 - 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. ---Petitioner(s) Versus Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chairman North Block, Sector 19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (Chhattisgarh) 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. B1/1 Celebrity Home Mohbao Bajar Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Dr. N. K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bole, Advocate (in W.P.S. No. 1569/2023) and Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate (in W.P.S. No. 1839/2023) For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Advocate General For P.S.C. : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate For Resp. No. 4 (in W.P.S. No. 1569 of 2023) : Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate For Resp. No. 6 (in W.P.S. No. 1839 of 2023) : Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) C.A.V. Order 1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is identical in nature and arises out of the same Advertisement dated 08.02.2023 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service 3 Commission, both the petitions were analogously heard together. As the questions of law and facts involved are substantially similar, they are being decided by this common order to avoid repetition of facts and to ensure consistency in adjudication. 2. The present writ petitions have been instituted by the respective petitioners challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the Advertisement dated 08.02.2023 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission for direct recruitment to the posts of Reader in the Medical Education (Ayush) Department. 3. In W.P.S. No. 1569/2023, the grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned advertisement has been issued on the basis of outdated Guidelines of the year 2007, ignoring the subsequent amendment brought into force vide Circular dated 09.11.2011 issued by the Under Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, whereby the post of Reader (Panchkarm) was earmarked exclusively as a promotional post with no provision for direct recruitment. It is thus contended that the very issuance of the advertisement for direct appointment to such post is contrary to the prevailing rules and is therefore illegal and without authority of law. 4. Similarly, in W.P.S. No. 1839/2023, the petitioner has assailed the same advertisement to the extent it notifies the post of Reader (Kayachikitsa) for direct recruitment, despite the governing service rules prescribing that only 25% of such posts may be filled 4 through direct recruitment and the remaining 75% through promotion. The petitioner, being the senior-most eligible Lecturer in the concerned discipline, contends that he has been arbitrarily denied consideration for promotion due to the action of the respondents in resorting to direct recruitment in disregard of the statutory quota. It is further urged that such action reflects clear apathy and inaction on the part of the authorities in not filling promotional vacancies in accordance with the applicable rules, thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioner’s service rights. 5. Thus, both the petitions have been filed primarily on the ground that the impugned advertisement is contrary to the applicable recruitment rules and amended guidelines, resulting in unlawful diversion of promotional posts to direct recruitment, and consequently depriving the petitioners of their legitimate right of consideration for promotion, rendering the impugned action arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, these writ petitions seeking following reliefs : WPS No. 1569 of 2023 : “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the selection process conducted through Direct Recruitment for the post of Reader Panchkarm released through Advertisement dated 8/02/2023. 5 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct the Respondent to stop the selection process conducted through Direct Recruitment for the post of Reader Panchkarm released through Advertisement dated 8/02/2023 and Direct the Respondents consider the Petitioner for Promotion. 10.4 That, the Petitioner is entitled for promotion to the Post of Reader Panchkarm from the date when his contemporaries were promoted (batch mates) and therefore, the Petitioner shall be promoted from the date 16/09/2021. WPS No. 1839 of 2023 : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside /quash the impugned advertisement published 08.02.2023 by CGPSC with respect to the post of Reader Kayachikitsa being contrary to the rules; 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Reader Kayachikitsa duly in accordance with law at the earliest and to take a decision of the same in time bound manner, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner all the Consequential benefit including the 6 pay-band, seniority etc. from the date where the petitioner was entitled for the promotion; 10.5 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 6. The facts of both the writ petitions, as brought on record, reveal that the petitioners are duly qualified and experienced persons serving in the Department of Medical Education (Ayush), State of Chhattisgarh, and are aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in issuing Advertisement dated 08.02.2023 for direct recruitment to the posts of Reader in different disciplines, allegedly in contravention of the applicable service rules and amended guidelines. In W.P.S. No. 1569 of 2023, the petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (Gond), is a qualified Ayurveda practitioner holding a Master’s Degree in Kaya Chikitsa obtained in the year 2011 from Government Ayurvedic College, Raipur. He was initially appointed as Ayurveda Medical Officer through the Public Service Commission in the year 2011 and thereafter, upon obtaining necessary permission, was appointed as Lecturer (Panchkarm) in 2016, where he has been serving with requisite experience and eligibility for promotion. It is his case that as per the amended guidelines dated 09.11.2011 issued by the State Government, there are only two sanctioned posts of Reader (Panchkarm), both of which are required to be filled exclusively by 7 promotion after applying the rule of rounding off, and therefore no post is available for direct recruitment. Despite this, the respondent authorities issued the impugned advertisement relying upon earlier guidelines of 2007, thereby depriving the petitioner of his legitimate promotional opportunity. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the gradation list and other documents to demonstrate that one post has already been filled by promotion and the remaining post is lying vacant, which ought to have been filled by promotion instead of direct recruitment. It is further the case of the petitioner that he had made several representations before the competent authorities, including the Scheduled Tribe Department and the Health Department, raising his grievance, however, no effective action was taken, compelling him to approach this Court. Similarly, in W.P.S. No. 1839 of 2023, the petitioner is serving as Lecturer (Kayachikitsa) since long, having been initially appointed in the year 1999 and thereafter transferred to Government Ayush College, Raipur, where he has continuously discharged his duties with diligence. As per the final gradation list dated 01.04.2022, the petitioner is placed at Serial No. 2, thereby falling within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Reader (Kayachikitsa). The service conditions governing the post are regulated by the Chhattisgarh Lok Swasthya (Bhartiya Chikitsa Paddhati Tatha Homeopathy) (Rajpatrit) Sewa Bharti Niyam, 1987, as amended in 2008, which provide that 25% of the posts are to be filled by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion. 8 However, it is contended that since only two posts of Reader are sanctioned, application of the rounding-off principle as clarified in the Government Circular dated 09.11.2011 results in both posts being treated as promotional posts. Despite this, the respondent authorities, while promoting one similarly situated person, failed to consider the petitioner and proceeded to advertise one post for direct recruitment, thereby denying the petitioner his fundamental right of consideration for promotion. It is further stated that even representations submitted by the petitioner were not duly considered, and the authorities proceeded to initiate the process of direct recruitment, including issuance of interview call letters. Thus, the common factual matrix emerging from both petitions is that the respondent authorities, in alleged disregard of the applicable statutory rules and amended guidelines, have issued the impugned advertisement providing for direct recruitment to posts which, according to the petitioners, are required to be filled by promotion. The petitioners, being eligible and falling within the zone of consideration, claim that such action has resulted in denial of their rightful opportunity for promotion and is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. Dr. N. K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bole, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P.S. No. 1569 of 2023, submits that the action of the respondent authorities in issuing the impugned Advertisement dated 08.02.2023 for direct 9 recruitment to the post of Reader (Panchkarm) is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the respondents have acted in blatant disregard of the amended guidelines dated 09.11.2011 issued by the State Government, and instead have erroneously relied upon the earlier guidelines dated 06.10.2007, which stood modified by virtue of the subsequent amendment. Learned Senior Counsel submits that once the amended guidelines have come into force, the same are binding upon the authorities, and any action taken in contravention thereof is liable to be struck down. It is further submitted that there are only two sanctioned posts of Reader (Panchkarm) in the Government Ayurvedic Colleges at Raipur and Bilaspur, and as per the applicable Recruitment Rules of 1987, as amended from time to time, 25% of the posts are to be filled by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion. However, upon applying the rule of proportion and the rounding-off principle as clarified in the Circular dated 09.11.2011, the fractional calculation results in 0.5 post for direct recruitment and 1.5 posts for promotion. As per the specific instructions contained in the said circular, where such fractional figures arise, the promotion quota is to be rounded off to the next integer and the fraction in the direct recruitment quota is to be eliminated. Consequently, both the posts of Reader (Panchkarm) are required to be filled exclusively by promotion. Despite this clear legal position, the respondents have proceeded to issue the advertisement for direct recruitment, which is ex facie contrary to 10 the binding guidelines and hence liable to be quashed. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that one post of Reader (Panchkarm) has been lying vacant since 16.09.2021, and the petitioner, being fully qualified and eligible, is entitled to be considered for promotion against the said vacancy. It is contended that despite repeated representations made by the petitioner bringing the amended guidelines to the notice of the authorities, the respondents have willfully ignored the same and have chosen to proceed with direct recruitment, thereby defeating the legitimate right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion. It is submitted that the action of the respondents has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner. The petitioner, who fulfills all eligibility criteria and possesses requisite teaching experience, has been arbitrarily deprived of his right of consideration for promotion. Instead of convening the Departmental Promotion Committee and filling the vacant post in accordance with law, the respondents have initiated the process of direct recruitment, which is not only contrary to the amended guidelines but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner had also approached the Secretary, Department of Scheduled Tribe, State of Chhattisgarh, who, vide communication dated 09.09.2021, took cognizance of the issue and sought clarification from the concerned departmental authorities regarding the action taken in the matter. However, despite such intervention, no response or corrective 11 action was undertaken by the respondent authorities. This inaction on the part of the respondents clearly demonstrates their arbitrary approach and disregard for the applicable rules and representations submitted by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that the impugned advertisement, to the extent it provides for direct recruitment to the post of Reader (Panchkarm), is illegal and liable to be quashed, and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to fill the said post strictly in accordance with the amended guidelines dated 09.11.2011 by considering eligible candidates, including the petitioner, for promotion. 8. Mr. Ishaan Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.S. No. 1839 of 2023, submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the constitutional mandates enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the authorities have acted with complete apathy and inaction by failing to consider the legitimate claim of the petitioner for promotion, despite his undisputed eligibility, and instead have proceeded to issue the impugned advertisement providing for direct recruitment, which is contrary to the governing statutory rules. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been serving the department with utmost sincerity and dedication since his initial appointment and has maintained an unblemished service record throughout. It is further submitted that pursuant to 12 the transfer order dated 22.11.1999, the petitioner joined his duties at Raipur on 26.11.1999 and has since then been continuously discharging his responsibilities to the satisfaction of his superiors. The long tenure and meritorious service of the petitioner clearly establish his entitlement to be considered for promotion. It is further contended that as per the final gradation list dated 01.04.2022 issued by the competent authority, the petitioner is placed at Serial No. 2, thereby falling squarely within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Reader (Kayachikitsa). Learned counsel submits that the service conditions governing the field are regulated by the Chhattisgarh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987, as amended in 2008, which clearly prescribe that the post of Reader (Kayachikitsa) is to be filled in the ratio of 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. Inviting attention to the factual position, it is submitted that there are only two sanctioned posts of Reader (Kayachikitsa) in the department. Applying the prescribed ratio, 75% translates to 1.5 posts for promotion and 25% translates to 0.5 posts for direct recruitment. Learned counsel submits that the issue relating to fractional posts stands settled by the Government Circular dated 09.11.2011, which provides that where both promotion and direct recruitment result in 0.5 fractions, preference is to be given to promotion by rounding it off, and the fractional post in direct recruitment is to be ignored. On 13 the application of the aforesaid circular, it is submitted that both the sanctioned posts are required to be filled through promotion, leaving no post available for direct recruitment. The issuance of the impugned advertisement providing for direct recruitment is thus in direct contravention of the statutory rules as well as binding executive instructions, rendering the same illegal and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have acted in a discriminatory manner by promoting one similarly situated individual, namely Dr. Satyadev Khicariya, while denying the same benefit to the petitioner, despite the petitioner being equally placed in the gradation list. Such selective application of rules is impermissible in law and strikes at the very root of equality as guaranteed under the Constitution. It is also submitted that the petitioner possesses all requisite qualifications and fulfills the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Reader (Kayachikitsa). Despite this, his representations seeking consideration for promotion have not been duly addressed by the authorities, thereby further demonstrating arbitrariness and non- application of mind. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab and S.B. Bhattacharjee v. S.D. Majumdar, learned counsel submits that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Denial of such consideration, especially in the face of eligibility and seniority, amounts to a clear infringement of constitutional rights. 14 Learned counsel further contends that the respondents cannot justify their action by placing reliance on subsequent Recruitment Rules of 2022. The legality of the impugned advertisement has to be examined in light of the rules prevailing at the relevant time, i.e., the 1987 Rules as amended, and any subsequent amendment cannot be applied retrospectively so as to defeat the accrued rights of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that even if the recruitment process pursuant to the impugned advertisement has been carried forward or completed, the same would not validate an action which is illegal at its inception. It is a settled principle that illegality cannot be perpetuated merely because it has been acted upon. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the impugned advertisement dated 08.02.2023 to the extent it provides for direct recruitment to the post of Reader (Kayachikitsa), and further direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, along with all consequential benefits. 9. At the outset, learned State counsel submits that both the writ petitions, as framed and filed by the respective petitioners, are wholly devoid of merit, misconceived in law and facts, and are therefore liable to be dismissed in limine. It is submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.02.2023 issued by the respondent No.2/Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, the entire process of recruitment was duly undertaken and concluded 15 in accordance with law. The merit list was published on 17.04.2023, and appointments have already been made pursuant thereto. In WPS No. 1839 of 2023, it is further pertinent to note that the selected candidate has already joined on the post of Reader (Kayachikitsa). Thus, the recruitment process having attained finality, the present challenge is belated and unsustainable. It is further submitted that in WPS No. 1569 of 2023, the petitioner has failed to assail the merit list dated 17.04.2023 and has also not impleaded the selected candidates as party respondents. It is a settled principle of law that once a right has accrued in favour of selected candidates, they become necessary and proper parties to any proceedings challenging the selection process. Non-impleadment of such necessary parties is fatal to the writ petition, and on this ground alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The core issue raised in both the writ petitions pertains to the manner of distribution of posts between direct recruitment and promotion under the applicable Recruitment Rules. The posts in question, namely Reader (Panchkarm) in WPS No. 1569 of 2023 and Reader (Kayachikitsa) in WPS No. 1839 of 2023, are governed by the Chhattisgarh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987. As per Schedule II of the said Rules, 75% of the posts are to be filled by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. It is submitted that in both cases, there are only two sanctioned posts. Applying the 16 prescribed ratio mathematically would result in 1.5 posts for promotion and 0.5 posts for direct recruitment. The petitioners have contended that 1.5 ought to be rounded off to 2, thereby allocating both posts to promotion and eliminating any scope for direct recruitment. Such an interpretation is erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the very object of the Recruitment Rules. It is humbly submitted that the Recruitment Rules must be interpreted in a pragmatic and purposive manner so as to maintain a balance between promotional avenues and opportunities for direct recruitment. Acceptance of the petitioners’ interpretation would completely negate the quota earmarked for direct recruitment and render it otiose. It is a settled principle that statutory provisions must be construed in a manner that furthers their object and not defeats it. Therefore, the fraction of 0.5 earmarked for direct recruitment cannot be reduced to zero. In this regard, it is submitted that the State Government had already considered this precise issue and, vide decision dated 06.10.2007 (duly approved by the General Administration Department), clarified that rounding off 1.5 to 2 would eliminate the direct recruitment quota, which is impermissible. Accordingly, a balanced approach was adopted to ensure that both streams, promotion and direct recruitment, are given effect to. The petitioners have placed reliance on a general communication dated 09.11.2011. It is submitted that the said communication is general in nature and does not specifically deal with the posts in question. Moreover, it does not take into account 17 the specific decision of the State Government dated 06.10.2007, nor does it indicate any approval from the General Administration Department. Therefore, the said communication is inconsequential and cannot override the specific decision taken by the competent authority in the present context. It is further submitted that the process for framing new Recruitment Rules had already commenced in the year 2019. Under the revised framework, the posts in question were proposed to be filled in the ratio of 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. The said proposal was duly approved by the General Administration Department on 04.01.2023. Consequently, the advertisement dated 08.02.2023 was issued in consonance with the approved draft Rules, providing for one post to be filled by direct recruitment. Subsequently, the said draft Rules have been finalized and notified on 19.06.2023 as the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare and Medical Education Department (AYUSH) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2022. The notified Rules clearly prescribe a 50:50 ratio between promotion and direct recruitment. Thus, even otherwise, the action of the respondents in issuing the advertisement and proceeding with the recruitment cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. It is submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court without properly appreciating the applicable legal framework and the intent underlying the Recruitment Rules. The interpretation sought to be advanced by the petitioners would frustrate the statutory 18 scheme and deprive eligible candidates of the opportunity to be appointed through direct recruitment, which is impermissible in law. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that both the writ petitions, being devoid of merit and substance, deserve to be dismissed. 10. Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent - Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC), submits that both the writ petitions are misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed. A bare perusal of the pleadings would reveal that the entire controversy raised by the respective petitioners in both petitions revolves around the issuance of advertisement dated 08.02.2023 for the posts of Reader (Panchkarm) and Reader (Kayachikitsa), allegedly in contravention of the circular dated 09.11.2011 issued by the Health & Family Welfare Department. The petitioners contend that since the calculation of 75% promotional quota and 25% direct recruitment quota results in a fraction (1.5 and 0.5 respectively), the fraction of 0.5 ought to be rounded off to zero and both posts ought to be filled by way of promotion. On such premise, the petitioners have sought to challenge the very issuance of advertisement providing for direct recruitment. It is submitted that the aforesaid contention is wholly misplaced insofar as the answering respondent is concerned. The CGPSC is a constitutional body constituted under Article 315 of the Constitution of India and discharges a limited and well-defined 19 role as a recruiting agency. The Commission does not determine policy, does not frame or interpret recruitment rules, and has no authority whatsoever to decide the manner of application of quota between promotion and direct recruitment. The Commission merely acts upon the requisition sent by the State Government/concerned department and conducts the selection process strictly in accordance with the rules and instructions communicated to it. In the present case, the advertisement dated 08.02.2023 was issued strictly on the basis of requisition received from the State Government for filling one post each of Reader (Panchkarm) and Reader (Kayachikitsa) through direct recruitment. The answering respondent has, therefore, acted strictly within the bounds of its statutory and constitutional mandate and cannot be faulted for the same. Any issue with regard to interpretation or applicability of the circular dated 09.11.2011 or the determination of quota is exclusively within the domain of the State Government, and the answering respondent has no role to play in the said aspect. Consequently, the contentions raised by the petitioners are liable to be answered by the State authorities and not by the Commission. It is further submitted that the factual matrix in both the petitions clearly demonstrates that the recruitment process has already been completed. The final select list was published on 17.04.2023, wherein candidates have been duly selected for both posts, and appointments have been effected. Thus, the selection process 20 has attained finality. At this belated stage, the challenge to the advertisement itself is not only untenable but also legally impermissible. It is pertinent to submit that the foundational facts leading to the issuance of advertisement have not been challenged by the petitioners. The petitioners have neither challenged the requisition sent by the State Government nor the applicable seniority lists nor the earlier orders pertaining to promotion. In WPS No. 1569 of 2023, the petitioner’s representations seeking promotion were rejected vide order dated 22.07.2022, which has not been assailed. Instead, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the advertisement after completion of the selection process, which is impermissible in law. Similarly, in WPS No. 1839 of 2023, reliance has been placed on an undated and unacknowledged representation, which does not inspire confidence and cannot be made the basis for invoking writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the seniority position and availability of posts were already crystallized prior to issuance of the advertisement. The provisional seniority list as on 01.04.2021 clearly reflected the distribution of posts and availability of vacancy for direct recruitment. The said seniority list has attained finality, as it was never challenged by the petitioners. The subsequent promotions granted on 21.10.2022 and 22.11.2022 also remained unchallenged. Thus, the petitioners are now attempting to indirectly assail the recruitment process without challenging the foundational and antecedent actions, which is 21 impermissible. It is submitted that both the writ petitions are based on hypothetical assumptions and misconceived interpretations of the circular dated 09.11.2011. It is also relevant to note that subsequent developments further fortify the stand of the answering respondent. The new Recruitment Rules, 2022, notified on 19.06.2023, prescribe a 50:50 ratio between promotion and direct recruitment for the posts in question, thereby recognizing and reinforcing the necessity of maintaining a balance between the two modes of recruitment. The action of issuing advertisement for direct recruitment is thus consistent with the evolving policy framework as determined by the State Government. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the answering respondent has acted strictly in accordance with law and within the scope of its limited jurisdiction. The grievances raised by the petitioners do not pertain to any act or omission on the part of the Commission and are, therefore, wholly misplaced. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that both the writ petitions, being devoid of merit and substance, deserve to be dismissed. 11. Mr. Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 in W.P.S. No. 1569 of 2023 would submit that present writ petition challenges the selection process initiated through direct recruitment for the post of Reader (Panchkarm) pursuant to advertisement dated 08.02.2023, while the petitioner simultaneously seeks promotion to the said post from a 22 retrospective date i.e. 16.09.2021. Such a challenge, after conclusion of the selection process, is misconceived and untenable in law. It is submitted that the respondent No. 4 was duly placed in the wait list published on 17.04.2023 by the CGPSC. Upon withdrawal of candidature by the candidate placed above him, namely Roopali Bhardwaj, the respondent No. 4 was moved to Serial No. 1 in the wait list and was subsequently selected and appointed by the Department vide order dated 29.09.2023. Pursuant thereto, he has already joined his duties on the same date and is presently discharging his functions. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 4 is fully eligible and qualified for the post, possessing the requisite postgraduate qualification of Ayurved Vachaspati (M.D. Ayurveda) in Panchkarm, along with relevant teaching experience as Lecturer from 13.01.2018 to 31.01.2023. His selection has been made strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and after due process. It is contended that the recruitment is governed by the Chhattisgarh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987, which prescribe a ratio of 75% by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. With two sanctioned posts, the mathematical distribution results in 1.5 posts for promotion and 0.5 for direct recruitment. The petitioner’s contention that 1.5 should be rounded off to 2, thereby eliminating direct recruitment altogether, is wholly erroneous and defeats the very object of the 23 Rules. It is settled that such interpretation cannot be adopted as it would extinguish the avenue of direct recruitment. It is submitted that the State Government has already clarified this issue vide decision dated 06.10.2007, holding that 0.5 cannot be treated as zero and 1.5 cannot be rounded off to 2 in a manner that nullifies direct recruitment. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the communication dated 09.11.2011 is misplaced, as the same is a general circular and does not override the specific decision of the State Government duly approved by the General Administration Department. It is further submitted that the advertisement dated 08.02.2023 was issued only after due approval by the competent authority on 04.01.2023, and the recruitment process has been completed in accordance with law. The petitioner cannot be permitted to advance an interpretation that frustrates the statutory scheme and unsettle a concluded selection. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the writ petition, being devoid of merit and substance, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 in W.P.S. No. 1839 of 2023 would submit that the present writ petition is wholly devoid of merit and substance and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.02.2023, the entire recruitment process was duly conducted and the merit list was published, wherein the answering respondent No. 6 has been duly selected and appointed to the post of Reader (Kayachikitsa). The selection has been made strictly in accordance with the applicable 24 rules and after due process. It is further submitted that as per the Chhattisgarh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987, 75% of the posts are to be filled by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. With only two sanctioned posts, the calculation results in 1.5 posts for promotion and 0.5 for direct recruitment. The petitioner’s contention that 1.5 should be rounded off to 2, thereby eliminating direct recruitment, is erroneous and defeats the very object of the Rules. Such an interpretation would render the provision for direct recruitment otiose. It is settled that the Rules must be interpreted pragmatically so as to preserve both avenues. Accordingly, 0.5 cannot be treated as zero. The State Government has already clarified this position vide decision dated 06.10.2007. It is also submitted that the process for framing new Recruitment Rules had commenced earlier, and the revised Rules, approved on 04.01.2023 and notified on 19.06.2023, prescribe a 50:50 ratio between promotion and direct recruitment. The advertisement dated 08.02.2023, providing for one post through direct recruitment, was thus in consonance with the approved framework and does not suffer from any illegality. It is submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court without proper appreciation of the applicable rules and seeks to advance an interpretation which would frustrate the statutory scheme. The selection of respondent No. 6, being lawful and based on merit, cannot be interfered with. In view of the above, it is that the writ 25 petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and have also perused the pleadings, documents and material placed on record. 14. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions, the core issue which arises for determination in both the writ petitions is whether the Advertisement dated 08.02.2023 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission providing for direct recruitment to the posts of Reader (Panchkarm) and Reader (Kayachikitsa) is contrary to the applicable Recruitment Rules and Government circulars, and whether the petitioners are entitled to claim that such posts ought to have been filled exclusively by way of promotion. 15. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the recruitment to the posts in question is governed by the Chhattisgarh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1987, as amended. As per Schedule-II of the said Rules, 75% of the posts are to be filled by promotion and 25% by direct recruitment. It is also not in dispute that there are only two sanctioned posts of Reader in each of the concerned disciplines. Thus, on a plain mathematical application of the prescribed ratio, the distribution works out to 1.5 posts for promotion and 0.5 posts for direct recruitment. 26 16. The principal contention advanced by the petitioners is that in view of the Government Circular dated 09.11.2011, the fractional figure of 0.5 in the direct recruitment quota ought to be ignored and the promotional quota of 1.5 ought to be rounded off to 2, thereby rendering both the posts as promotional posts. On such premise, it is argued that the impugned advertisement providing for direct recruitment is illegal. However, this Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The Recruitment Rules, being statutory in nature, provide for a specific quota between promotion and direct recruitment. The object of prescribing such quota is to maintain a balance between the two sources of recruitment. Any interpretation which completely eliminates one source would defeat the very scheme and intent of the Rules. 17. The Circular dated 09.11.2011, heavily relied upon by the petitioners, is in the nature of a general executive instruction. The same cannot be read in isolation so as to override or nullify the statutory Recruitment Rules. Moreover, the State Government has already considered the issue relating to fractional posts and, vide decision dated 06.10.2007, clarified that rounding off 1.5 to 2 and 0.5 to 0 would completely extinguish the avenue of direct recruitment, which is impermissible. The said decision, having been approved by the competent authority, reflects a conscious policy to preserve both streams of recruitment. 18. It is well settled that statutory provisions must be interpreted in a 27 manner that advances the object of the legislation and not in a manner that renders any part thereof redundant or otiose. Acceptance of the petitioners’ interpretation would result in complete denial of opportunity to candidates seeking appointment through direct recruitment, which cannot be countenanced. It is further relevant to note that the process for framing new Recruitment Rules had already been initiated, and the proposal providing for a 50:50 ratio between promotion and direct recruitment was duly approved on 04.01.2023. The advertisement dated 08.02.2023 was issued in consonance with the said approved framework. Subsequently, the new Rules have also been notified on 19.06.2023, reaffirming the balanced approach between the two modes of recruitment. Thus, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to the governing policy. 19. Another significant aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the entire selection process pursuant to the impugned advertisement has already been completed. The merit list was published on 17.04.2023 and appointments have been made. In W.P.S. No. 1839 of 2023, the selected candidate has already joined the post. In W.P.S. No. 1569 of 2023, the petitioner has not even challenged the select list nor impleaded the selected candidates as party respondents. 20. It is trite law that any challenge to a selection process without 28 impleading the selected candidates is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Furthermore, the petitioners have also failed to challenge the foundational actions leading to the issuance of the advertisement, including the requisition sent by the State Government, the seniority lists, and the earlier orders relating to promotion. In absence of such challenge, the present writ petitions, which seek to indirectly assail the recruitment process, cannot be entertained. The contention of the petitioners that they have been denied their right of consideration for promotion also does not merit acceptance in the facts of the present case. The right to be considered for promotion is undoubtedly a valuable right; however, such right cannot be stretched to claim that promotional posts must be increased by eliminating the quota earmarked for direct recruitment under the Rules. This Court is of the considered view that the interpretation sought to be advanced by the petitioners is not only contrary to the statutory scheme but would also lead to anomalous and unjust results. The respondents have acted in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, the policy decision of the State Government, and the requisition approved by the competent authority. No arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of constitutional provisions is made out. 21. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no merit in either of the writ petitions. The impugned Advertisement dated 08.02.2023 does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting 29 interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. Accordingly, both W.P.S. No. 1569 of 2023 and W.P.S. No. 1839 of 2023 are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE