High Court Extends Interim Stay on Psychologist Recruitment in Punjab and Haryana
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has prolonged the interim stay on the recruitment of psychologists through outsourcing, with the next hearing scheduled for March 11. This decision comes as a significant development in an ongoing legal battle over hiring practices for mental health professionals in the region.
Background of the Case and Government Order
The controversy began when the state government issued an order on December 18, 2025, which abruptly halted the recruitment process for 343 psychologists. Instead, the order directed deputy commissioners to recruit 200 psychologists on an outsourcing basis for de-addiction, rehabilitation, and OOAT centres. This move disrupted the selection process that had already seen progress.
Prior to this order, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (BFUHS) had conducted a written test on May 26, 2025, and had shortlisted 180 candidates. The government's decision to shift to outsourcing left these candidates in limbo, prompting them to approach the high court for relief.
Court Proceedings and Legal Arguments
The matter was heard by a bench presided over by Justice Namit Kumar. During the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioners presented compelling arguments highlighting the critical need for psychologists in the state. They emphasized that psychologists are indispensable for the success of the government's 'Yudh Nashiyan Virudh' campaign, aimed at combating drug abuse, as effective and sustained outcomes depend heavily on their expertise.
Furthermore, it was submitted that numerous psychologist positions remain vacant at a time when Punjab is grappling with a severe drug crisis and a growing mental health crisis. The petitioners argued that immediate and proper appointments are essential to address these pressing public health issues, making the delay in recruitment particularly detrimental.
Implications and Next Steps
The extension of the interim stay until March 11 means that the outsourcing recruitment process will remain on hold, providing temporary relief to the candidates who had been shortlisted. This ruling underscores the court's recognition of the urgency in filling these vital positions to support the state's health initiatives.
As the case continues, stakeholders will be closely watching the next hearing, which could set important precedents for recruitment practices in the public health sector. The outcome may influence how the state balances efficiency in hiring with the need for qualified professionals to tackle complex social challenges.
