Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds State's Authority in Clinical Psychologist Recruitment
The Chhattisgarh High Court has firmly dismissed a writ petition filed by four women clinical psychologists who contested the state government's recruitment advertisement and notification for clinical psychologist positions. The court ruled that the prescribed eligibility criteria are within the legitimate policy domain of the state as an employer, rejecting claims of discrimination and legal violations.
Petitioners' Claims and Legal Grounds
The petitioners, who are qualified and practising clinical psychologists registered with the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) under the RCI Act, 1992, argued that the recruitment rules infringed upon their statutory rights. They contended that the advertisement, issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission on April 22, 2025, and a subsequent gazette notification from September 9, 2024, unlawfully expanded eligibility to include qualifications recognised by the National Medical Commission (NMC).
According to the petitioners, this move diluted the exclusive authority of the RCI to regulate clinical psychologists as mandated by the Mental Healthcare Act (MHCA), 2017, and the RCI Act. They further alleged that the provisions violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, risking public mental healthcare by allowing unqualified individuals to hold specialised posts.
Court's Rationale and Dismissal
A division bench comprising Justices Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal found the petition devoid of merit. The court observed that the recruitment advertisement clearly used the term "OR" to separate alternative eligibility criteria, meaning the petitioners, with their master's degrees in clinical psychology, already met the primary requirements. Thus, their grievance was deemed academic and hypothetical, as no actual prejudice or exclusion was demonstrated.
The bench emphasised that neither the MHCA nor the RCI Act curtails the state's power as an employer to set eligibility conditions for public posts. It stated that the impugned rules do not negate the statutory recognition of RCI-registered professionals nor prohibit their appointment. The court cited the Supreme Court precedent in Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors, which upholds the employer's discretion in prescribing qualifications unless manifestly arbitrary.
Implications and Broader Context
This ruling reinforces the principle that recruitment criteria fall within the policy domain of state employers, provided they do not contravene statutory or constitutional provisions. The decision highlights the judiciary's reluctance to intervene in such matters without concrete evidence of harm or illegality. It also underscores the ongoing balance between professional standards set by central legislation and state-level administrative autonomy in public sector hiring.
The case serves as a reminder for professionals to base legal challenges on demonstrable injury rather than speculative concerns, ensuring that court resources are reserved for substantive disputes affecting rights and public welfare.
