Back
2003(7) Supreme 256
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
M.B. Shah and AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Vijay Lakshmi -Appellant
versus
Punjab University and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13393 of 1996
Decided on 23-9-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Seema Nair, Ms. Sudha Pal, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Shomila Bakshi, Advocates
For the Respondent No. 4 : K.G. Bhagat, Vineet Bhagat, Debasis Misra, Kamal Baid and Ms. Dipali Chauhan, Advocates.
Held : For deciding the issue, we would refer to established propositions of law interpreting Article 14 to 16, which are"-
* Article 14 does not bar rational classification;
* Reasonable discrimination between female and male for an object sought to be achieved is permissible;
* Question of unequal treatment does not arise if there are different sets of circumstances;
* Equality of opportunity for unequals can only mean aggravation of inequality;
* Equality of opportunity admits discrimination, with reasons and prohibits discrimination without reason. - Discrimination with reasons means rational classification for different treatment having nexus with constitutionally permissible objects. - It is now an accepted jurisprudence and practice that the concept of equality before the law and the prohibition of certain kinds of discrimination do not require identical treatment. The equality means the relative equality, namely the principle to treat equally what are equal and unequally what are unequal. To treat unequals differently according to their inequality is not only permitted but required. {Re: St. Stephen s College vs. University of Delhi [(1992) 1 SCC 559]}.
* Sex is a sound basis for classification.
* Article 15 (3) categorically empowers the State to make special provision for women and children;
* Articles 14 ,15 and 16 are to be read conjointly. (Paras 4)
In the light of the aforesaid principles, on the concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution, it can be stated that there could be classification between male and female for certain posts. Such classification cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjustified. If separate colleges or schools for girls are justifiable, rules providing appointment of lady principal or teacher would also be justified. The object sought to be achieved is a precautionary, preventive and protective measure based on public morals and particularly in view of the young age of the girl students to be taught. One may believe in absolute freedom, one may not believe in such freedom but in such case when a policy decision is taken by the State and rules are framed accordingly, it cannot be termed to be arbitrary or unjustified. Hence, it would be difficult to hold that rules empowering the authority to appoint only a lady Principal or a lady teacher or a lady doctor or a woman Superintendent are violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. (Para 5)
In view of the aforesaid established law interpreting Articles 14 to 16, Rules 5 and 8 of Punjab University Calendar Volume - III providing for appointment of lady principal in Women s College or a lady teacher therein cannot be held to be violative either of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution, because classification is reasonable and it has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In addition, the State Government is empowered to make such special provisions under Article 15 (3) of the Constitution. This power is not restricted in any manner by Article 16. (Para 11)
JUDGMENT
Shah, J.-Preference given to a woman for being appointed as a Principal of the Government College for Girls is held to be violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On the face of it, it appears that such reservation in favour of a Woman for being appointed as Principal of exclusive Girls College cannot be held to be violative of right to equality.
2. However, this question is required to be decided in view of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Writ Petition No. 11694 of 1994 holding that Rules providing reservation/preference in favour of a woman is violative of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. That judgment is challenged by filing this appeal.
3. For this purpose, the High Court interpreted Rules 5, 8 and 10 of the Punjab University Calendar Volume - III, which are as under:-
"Rule 5. The Principal of a women s college shall be lady who shall possess at least Master s Degree in 1st or 2nd Class or an equivalent degree with experience of teaching in a college. This rule shall not apply to Women s colleges whose men or women Principals have already been approved. Provided that on their retirement, a qualified lady Principal shall be appointed.
Rule 8. As far as possible, ladies shall be appointed as teachers. In case a qualified lady teacher in a particular subject is not available, the college authorities may appoint a man teacher with the prior approval of the Vice Chancellor. A man teacher so appointed shall not be confirmed by the management in his post and he shall be replaced as soon as a suitable qualified lady teacher is available.
Rule 10. The College shall have a hostel in or near the premises of the college. It shall be under the charge of a whole time Woman Superintendent. There shall a part time or whole time women Medical Officer."
4. For deciding the issue, we would refer to established propositions of law interpreting Articles 14 to 16, which are:-
* Article 14 does not bar rational classification;
* Reasonable discrimination between female and male for an object sought to be achieved is permissible;
* Question of unequal treatment does not arise if there are different sets of circumstances;
* Equality of opportunity for unequals can only mean aggravation of inequality;
* Equality of opportunity admits discrimination, with reasons and prohibits discrimination without reason. - Discrimination with reasons means rational classification for differential treatment having nexus with constitutionally permissible objects. - It is now an accepted jurisprudence and practice that the concept of equality before the law and the prohibition of certain kinds of discrimination do not require identical treatment. The equality means the relative equality, namely the principle to treat equally what are equal and unequally what are unequal. To treat unequals differently according to their inequality is not only permitted but required. {Re: St. Stephen s College vs. University of Delhi [(1992) 1 SCC 559]}.
* Sex is a sound basis for classification.
* Article 15 (3) categorically empowers the State to make special provision for women and children;
* Articles 14, 15 and 16 are to be read conjointly.
5. In the light of the aforesaid principles, on the concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution, it can be stated that there could be classification between male and female for certain posts. Such classification cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjustified. If separate colleges or schools for girls are justifiable, rules providing appointment of lady principal or teacher would also be justified. The object sought to be achieved is a precautionary, preventive and protective measure based on public morals and particularly in view of the young age of the girl students to be taught. One may believe in absolute freedom, one ma
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
