Why Chhattisgarh High Court rejected plea by clinical psychologists over ‘unqualified’ recruitments

The bench, however, held, “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.”

The order added, “The legitimate policy domain of the State as an employer does not infringe upon the statutory scheme of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 or the RCI Act.”

Does compromising professional standards violate Articles 14, 21?

• The petitioners were qualified and practising clinical psychologists, registered with the RCI, and had obtained their qualifications from institutions recognised by the RCI in accordance with the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992.
• The petitioners fulfilled the statutory definition of “clinical psychologist” under Section 2(g)(defines clinical psychologist) of the Mental Healthcare Act(MHCA), 2017.
• The petitioners were legally entitled to practice and hold the post of clinical psychologist under the prevailing central legislation governing the field.
• The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued a recruitment advertisement dated April 22, 2025, for various posts, including the post of clinical psychologist.
• Under Clause (2.C)(iv)(क) of the advertisement, the educational requisites had been prescribed as post-graduation in clinical psychology or any equivalent qualification recognised by the National Medical Commission (NMC).
• The petitioners, otherwise eligible, were aggrieved by the inclusion of NMC-recognised qualifications for the advertisement, which, in their view, was contrary to the statutory framework governing clinical psychologists.
• Further, the petitioners were also aggrieved by the amendment made through the Gazette notification dated September 9, 2024, issued by the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazette) Services Recruitment Rules, 1988.
• The petitioner submitted that the said amendment dilutes the statutory provisions 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.
• Additionally, they challenged Clause 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 postgraduate degree in Psychology along with an MPhil in Medical and Social Psychology or Medical Psychology.
• The petitioners contended that the impugned advertisement and recruitment rules were ultra vires (beyond legal power or authority) the provisions of the MHCA and RCI Act, and unlawfully expanded eligibility to persons not statutorily recognised as clinical psychologists.
• The petitioners further argued that the aforesaid provisions thereby violate Articles 14 ( guarantees Fundamental Right to Equality, prohibiting the State from denying any person “equality before the law” or “equal protection of the laws” within India’s territory) and 21(No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law) of the Constitution of India.
• They emphasised that the impugned provisions not only discriminated against RCI-registered professionals but also posed serious risks to public mental healthcare by allowing unqualified persons to occupy specialised clinic posts.

‘Grievance raised largely academic, hypothetical’

• No merit is found in the challenge of the petitioners.
• It is evident that the impugned recruitment advertisement dated April 4, 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 academic and hypothetical, as no prejudice or exclusion has been demonstrated.
• It is a settled principle of law; the challenge is based on speculative apprehensions or academic disputes without demonstrable injury, hence it will not be entertained.
• The contention that the inclusion of qualifications recognised by the NMC renders the impugned provisions ultra vires the MHCA and RCI Act is equally untenable.
• Neither statute curtails the power of the State, as an employer, to prescribe eligibility conditions for public posts.
• Further, the plea of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution is misconceived.
• 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.
• The petitioners have failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality, repugnancy, or violation of statutory or constitutional provisions in the aforesaid impugned Recruitment Advertisement, the Gazette notification, or Clause 17 of Schedule-III.
• 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 infringe upon the statutory scheme of the MHCA and RCI Act.
• The writ petition is devoid of merit and is based on misconceived legal grounds. Therefore dismissed.

The Chhattisgarh High Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors, which 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 was not the case in the present petition.

The court said the petitioners had “failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality, repugnancy, or violation of statutory or constitutional provisions” in the statutory framework.