Back
1986 Supreme(Kar) 335
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Doddakale Gowda
SRINIVASAIAH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
W. P. 5429 Of 1981
Decided On : 09/23/1986
Advocates Appeared :
L.Govindaraj, N.DEVA DAS
The court upheld the constitutional validity of a rule that only women are eligible for appointment as Principals of Women's Colleges, citing Article 15(3) of the Constitution which allows for special provisions for women.
Headnote:
Discrimination - Educational Institution - The court upheld the constitutional validity of a rule that only women are eligible for appointment as Principals of Women's Colleges, citing Article 15(3) of the Constitution which allows for special provisions for women. The rule was deemed to be in conformity with the Constitution and not discriminatory.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a male Reader, challenged the constitutional validity of a rule that only women are eligible for appointment as Principals of Women's Colleges, contending that it is discriminatory, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rule was in conformity with Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which allows for special provisions for women. It also cited examples of other rules and provisions made in favor of women that have stood the test of time and have not been found to have any constitutional infirmity.
Issues: Constitutional validity of a rule that only women are eligible for appointment as Principals of Women's Colleges, and whether it is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the conformity of the rule with Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which allows for special provisions for women, and the precedent of other rules and provisions made in favor of women that have not been found to be unconstitutional.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition and discharged the rule, upholding the constitutional validity of the rule that only women are eligible for appointment as Principals of Women's Colleges.
( 1 ) AN educational institution, known as "maharani's Arts College for Women" situate in Mysore is exclusively meant for educating girls. Contention of petitioner is that he was second senior-most Reader in the College at the relevant point of time and Note-4 of the Karnataka education Department (Collegiate Education Department) (Recruitment) Rules 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') which has denied opportunity of becoming of Principal of that College is ultra vires and illegal.
( 2 ) NOTES 3 and 4 of the Rules read thus :
"note 3 : The Senior most Professor or Assistant Professor as the case may be will be the principal of the College. Note 4 ; Only women shall be eligible for appointment as Principals of Women's Colleges".
As the post of Principal of Maharani's College is required to be filled up exclusively by Women, petitioner has challenged its constitutional validity, inter alia, contending that it is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
( 3 ) IN W. P. No. 6363/1980, Susheela Singh v. State and Ors. DD 3-10 1980 constitutional validity of this Note is left open. Article 15 (3) of the Constitution provides for making a special provision for women. As has already indicated, this institution is exclusively meant for imparting education to girls, rule making authority thought it fit in its wisdom that institution should be headed or administered only by women. This provision is in conformity with Article 15 (3) of the constitution. Learned Counsel for petitioner fairly and rightly admitted posting of Lady Doctors exclusively to the Maternity Hospitals cannot be challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. So also rule in Posts and Telegraphs to the effect that no women can work in telephone Exchange after 8 P. M cannot be challenged as ultra-vires. These rules and other like provisions made in favour of women have stood the test of time and I do not find any constitutional infirmity.
( 4 ) THAT apart, petitioner, at present, working elsewhere and not in the present institution thereby deprived of his chance of becoming of the Principal. No merit. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
