Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

1. It is an issue of judicial invalidation of Legislation: Rule 27A of the Foreign Liquor Rules is impugned as being violative of Articles 14, 15(1) & (3), 16(1) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Uncluttered by statutory references, the issue is whether a woman can be deprived of employment solely on the ground of the alleged disadvantage she suffers from owing to her gender. In the present instance, women are sought to be discriminated against because of their sex, and nothing else.

Facts in Brief:

The petitioners, working as waitresses/restaurant assistants in a bar attached to a hotel in Trivandrum, faced the threat of termination from their employment with the introduction of a new Rule governing the Bars attached to hotels. As per the amendment of the Foreign Liquor Rules notified as SRO No. 959/2013 dated 09/12/2013, a new rule as Rule 27A is incorporated prohibiting women from being employed "in any capacity for serving liquor on the licensed premises". In terms of the same notification, in Form FL-3 under the heading "Conditions", a new condition has been incorporated as condition No. 9A which also contains the same prohibition for engaging women in the Bars. The raison detre for the introduction of Rule 27A of the Rules and the consequential procedural measures is that the Government has received complaints that women are being employed to serve liquor in the licensed bars.

2. Both the petitioners, who are working as waitresses or bartenders in an FL-3 licenced hotel, have a grievance that if the newly incorporated rule is allowed to hold its field, the petitioners are bound to lose their jobs and, thus, their livelihood. The petitioners do aver that their employer has already informed them that the management is not able to provide them any other employment in the hotel, and that they are bound to be terminated very soon. The petitioners' Ext. P5 representation, submitted to the respondents 1 to 3, does not seem to have evoked any response.

3. Thus, both the petitioners, being the bread-winners of their families with children and elder members to be supported, challenge Rule 27A of the Rules as being ultra vires of the Executive, especially in the face of Articles 14 , 15(1) & (3), 16(1) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Summary of Submissions:

4. Mr. Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the 'conceptual change' of employment has advanced the status of women in the society at large, and any stray incidents of violence against women in their workplace or elsewhere is not at all a valid reason for keeping them away from any employment.

5. He further contends that no restriction can be imposed on the basis of gender against any person working in a star hotel either as per the norms/conditions fixed for its classification or under the FL-3 licence or any other law in force. According to the learned counsel, there have been no complaints whatsoever regarding any misbehaviour by any customer towards the women employees working in the licensed premises. When tourism is aggressively promoted, the need for involving women in the hospitality industry cannot be overemphasized.

6. The Government's avowed objective in bringing about the statutory changes in depriving the women of their employment opportunities, according to the learned counsel, is entirely on a misplaced assumption of its role as parens patriae. The governmental policy, in essence, is myopic and archaic, contends the learned counsel.

7. The learned counsel has also contended that the issue raised in the present writ petition has been squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anuj Garg and Others Vs. Hotel Association of India and Others. He has also placed reliance on Ms. Githa Hariharan and Another Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Another, wherein the Apex Court has adverted to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against W