A classification based on sex is reasonable and is not contrary to Articles 15 (1) and 16 (1) and 16 (2) of the Constitution if it is made as a special provision for women under Article 15 (3) of the Constitution.

( 1 ) ON the one hand. Articles 14, 15 (1), 16 (1) and 16 (2) of the Constitution declare the right to equality and prohibit the State from practising discrimination. On the other hand, Articles 46, 15 (3), 15 (4) and 16 (4) firstly impose a duty on the State to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and enable the State to make any special provision for women and children as also lor the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens as also for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The former is the negative and the latter is positive aspect of the fundamental right of equality. Equality is not only proclaimed as an ideal but is sought to be achieved in actuality by asking the State to remove inequality and enabling it to make appropriate provisions. These two classes of provisions should, therefore, not be conflicting but have to be read together to make up the ideal of equality effective and real. It is in this context that we have to consider whether the impugned orders dated 30-6-1978 and 22-7-1978, annexures A and C to the writ petition, reserving the posts of Enquiry and Reservation clerks in the four metropolitan cities of Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras in the Railway for women only are contrary to the former set of provisions, namely. Articles 14, 15 (1), 16 (1) and 16 (2), or whether they are justified by reading Articles 46, 15 (3), 15 (4) and 16 (4) with the above provisions.

( 2 ) THE petitioners fall into two classes. Petitioners I to 24 belonged to commercial category of Railway services and aspire for being selected and appointed to the posts of Enquiry and Reservation clerks. They are otherwise eligible for being considered for such appointments. They are now barred from being so considered because the impugned order, dated 30-6-1978 restricts future recruitment to these posts in the four metropolitan cities only to women. The written test which was to be held for selection of candidates for these posts was to be confined to women by the impungned order, dated 22-7-1978. These petitioners complain that the impungned orders have made them ineligible for and have discriminated against them in respect of the posts of Enquiry and Reservation clerks in these four cities on the ground only of the sex of the candidates. They thus contravene Article 16 (2) which is as follows:

"no citizen shall, on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of. any employment or office under the State. "

( 3 ) THE rest of the petitioners arc already serving in the Enquiry and Reservation office at Delhi. They joined in the petition under the apprehension that they may be moved out of the said office and would not be allowed to continue. This apprehension was misplaced as the impugned orders expressly contemplate that the men who are presently working in the Reservation office arc not to be moved out unless they volunteer to go out.

( 4 ) PETITIONERS I to 24 pray that the impugned orders be quashed as they infringe their fundamental right of not being ineligible for and not being discriminated against in respect of these posts. Firstly, it is urged that the Government is concerned with the existence of malpractices in the reservation offices and public complaints arising there from arc well known. With a view to reduce the mal-practices it is considered that women instead of men should alone be rccruited in future to the posts of Enquiry and Reservation clerks initially. For, in the social conditions obtaining at present in the country \vomen employees are less susceptible to improper influence. The Government considered that a substantial improvement could be effected if w