1. The attitude of courts in the United States of America in dealing with the plea of discrimination against women, in the early cases, is often referred to as romantic paternalism. The social thinking and the approach to the question of the role women had to play in society was, even in that country, tradition bound for more than a century after equal rights of women had been recognised as an inviolable civil right. The marked change in the attitude of courts on the question of gender based discrimination is, a post 1970 phenomena in that country. The protectionist policy has now given way to the realisation that woman is in every respect entitled to claim equal rights with man. Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 16 Wall 131 (1873) to Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S.677 (1973) is a hundred years of interesting case history. Much more tradition bound, as we are in this country, we may perhaps take some time to get out of the hangover of our past to realise that under the Indian Constitution woman has equal rights with man and that needs to be secured, if necessary, by affirmative action.

2. We have two petitioners before us in two cases. Both are women. They found themselves in an annoying situation when, responding to invitation to apply for appointment as Last Grade Servants in the Civil Service of the Kerala State, they found that they had been selected and given high ranks but were told later that they are not being appointed apparently for the reason they are women. They have approached the Court to vindicate themselves.

3. Since the questions arising for decision in the Writ Appeal and the Original Petition are more or less the same we thought it fit to hear the Original Petition along with the Writ Appeal and we are disposing of these by a common judgment. The judgment of the learned single judge challenged in the Writ Appeal is one dismissing the Original Petition in limine by a short order which reads:

"The petitioner missed the bus when the list expired on 7101982. No grounds for interference. The Original Petition is dismissed in limine".

Evidently what the learned single judge meant appears to be that the validity of the list of Last Grade Servants published by the Public Service Commission was only for a period of 2 years and though the petitioner's name was in the rank list and the petitioner, on the basis of her rank, anticipated appointment and further she was disappointed when she was not advised, the Original Petition having come up for admission only after 7-10-1982 by which time the period of the currency of the list had expired no interference was called for. The petitioner seems to have waited for advice and only when she found that despite her high rank she was not being advised she came to Court. There is no case that the petition was belated. If, as a matter of fact, she was to be advised and she was not, the mere fact that the period of the list had expired just before she came to Court should not operate to disentitle her to claim relief from this Court. The question would be whether the petitioner's right was infringed by the failure to advise her for appointment. That is the question which arises for decision and therefore we admitted the appeal and ordered notice to the respondents. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal one of us, the Acting Chief justice, received a petition from one similarly placed as the appellant in the Writ Appeal and in view of the facts stated therein we thought we should take notice of it. We treated it as an Original Petition, and issued notice to the State of Kerala and the Kerala Public Service Commission. Counter-affidavits have been filed therein by the State as well as the Public Service Commission. There also the question raised is whether the petitioner who was selected for appointment as a Last Grade Servant was denied advice for good and sufficient reason. Though the petitioners in both the cases have obtained fairly high ranks in the rank list published