Rajasthan High Court Slams Gender-Based Promotion Barriers | A Female Should Not Be Placed At A Disadvantage Simply Because Of Her Gender | Exclusion Violates Articles 14 15 16 And 21
Isabella Mariam
In a landmark judgement advancing gender equality in public employment, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, Single Bench presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, set aside the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal's decision which denied promotion to a female Lecturer based on gender-based cadre classification.
The judgment stated that "making a discrimination between male and female candidates on the basis of their gender, for the purpose of promotion in Boys or Girls Institutions, amounts to violation of the provisions of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India". The Court found such action "arbitrary, unjustified and... liable to be deprecated."
The petitioner, a female Lecturer appointed through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) with Merit Rank 4, served throughout her career in boys' institutions. However, when promotions to the post of Principal were considered, her name was omitted from the seniority list. In contrast, male counterparts with lower merit positions, including Neeraj Kumar Sharma (Merit Rank 8) and Ashok Kumar Joshi (Merit Rank 31), were promoted.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, which upheld her exclusion based on her classification under Schedule-II (Girls Institutions) of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970.
Citing Rule 28(3) of the 1970 Rules, the petitioner contended that inter se seniority for direct recruits from a common selection must follow the merit list. Rule 4(4) creates separate cadres for Boys and Girls Institutions, but, as per the petitioner, this was misapplied to deny her promotion despite consistent service in Boys Institutions.
Respondents contended that under Rule 4(4), female Lecturers are confined to the cadre of Girls Institutions (Schedule-II), thus making her ineligible for promotion in the cadre of Boys Institutions (Schedule-I), irrespective of merit.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand carefully examined the petitioner's service record, the applicable rules, and constitutional provisions. The Court noted:
"Perusal of Rule 28(3) of the Rules of 1970 clearly indicates that the seniority inter se of persons appointed to the post in a particular category by direct recruitment on the basis of one and same selection shall follow the order in which they have been placed in the list, prepared by the Commission under Rule 20. It is worthy to note here that no distinction has been made between male or female Lecturers."
The judgment criticized reliance on Rule 4(4) and Schedule-based classification for promotions, stating that: "A female should not be placed at a disadvantage simply because of her gender, especially when she is more meritorious than the other candidates (male)."
It further held that such classification violated Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution: "If any ground of discrimination, whether direct or indirect, is founded on a stereotypical understanding of the role of the sex, it would not be distinguishable from the discrimination which is prohibited by Article 15 on the grounds only of sex."
The Court supported its reasoning with precedent, including:
- C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India [(1979) 4 SCC 260], where gender-based rules in foreign service were struck down.
- Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India [(2008) 3 SCC 1], which stated against laws based on "incurable fixations of stereotype morality and conceptions of sexual role."
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [(2018) 10 SCC 1], which called for "substantive equality" and stated effect over form in determining discrimination.
The Court concluded: "In the considered opinion of this court, this is a clear case of discrimination, which not only falls within the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution but is also specifically prohibited by Article 15(1) and Article 16(2)."
It relied further on Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai [(2022) 12 SCC 579], reiterating that while the right to promotion may not be fundamental, the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1).
The impugned order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the respondent-Department was declared unsustainable in law and was accordingly quashed and set aside by the Court.
The Court issued the following directions: "The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal, as per her seniority, with effect from the date on which the male lecturers, junior to her, have been granted promotion to the post of Principal and also provide her all the consequential benefits."
It was further ordered that: "The respondents would comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order."
A general mandamus was also issued: "The State of Rajasthan is directed to take immediate policy decision and action to address and rectify the existing irregularities and deficiencies in various Rules, Regulations, and Policies, inasmuch as, such shortcomings have led to discriminatory practices against females who perform the same work and duties as their male counterparts, yet do not receive the equivalent benefits, provided to males."
The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, for necessary action.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Vikram Singh Nain
For the Respondents: Ms. Anjum Parveen Salawat for Ms. Namita Parihar, Deputy Government Counsel
Case Title: Smt. Rajani Bhardwaj D/o Sh. N.R. Bhardwaj v. Director, Secondary Education & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP: 11228
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4255/2015
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
[Read/Download order]
