Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 66
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI
R.S. Kavitha & Another
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Transport Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others
W.P.No.24856 of 2008
Decided on : 05-01-2010
For the Petitioners:N. Manokaran, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 T. Seenivasan, Additional Government Pleader, R2, R3, C. Kanagaraj, Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of treating women equally with men and exercising discretion in rare cases without harming the nature of work.
Headnote:
Gender Equality - Appointment of Conductors - G.O.No.89, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 12. 1989 - Rule 59(b), Appendix III of Service Rules
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the petitioners, unemployed women with B.Com. degrees and conductor licenses, seeking appointment as conductors in the transport corporation. The corporation had filled 930 conductor vacancies, with only 4 allotted to women, allegedly violating G.O.No.89 and constitutional provisions on gender equality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first petitioner lacked the required height, while the second petitioner had not produced a valid First Aid Certificate. The court directed the corporation to consider the second petitioner's case upon producing the certificate and ordered the corporation to consider both petitioners for available conductor vacancies.
Issues: Violation of G.O.No.89 and constitutional provisions on gender equality, eligibility of petitioners for conductor positions
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the corporation should consider the second petitioner upon producing the required certificate and should consider the first petitioner's case due to the negligible height difference. The court emphasized the importance of treating women equally with men and exercising discretion in rare cases without harming the nature of work.
Final Decision: The court directed the corporation to consider both petitioners for available conductor vacancies and to pass appropriate orders within a specified period.
The issue involved in this case relates to the concept of gender equality in relation to the appointment of conductors in the respondents/ Transport Corporation.
2. 1. The petitioners, who are unemployed women, have completed B.Com. Degree and also obtained conductor licence. The Government by lifting the ban on recruitment by G.O.Ms.No.57, dated 27. 2005 has decided to fill up 4000 driver posts and 1500 conductor posts in its transport corporations. The petitioners have registered their names in the employment exchange in the year 1999. It is stated that the second respondent has called for the list of eligible candidates from the employment exchange and the names of the petitioners were forwarded and the petitioners attended interview on 15. 2007 in the office of the third respondent. There were 930 vacancies for the post of conductors in the second respondent/Corporation, out of which 925 posts were allotted to male candidates and only 4 posts were allotted to ladies.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have produced all the records relating to the educational qualifications and physical fitness for the post and even after 1= years there was no reply. Thereafter the petitioners were informed that only 19 ladies have attended the interview and learnt that the selection was not done as per G.O.No.89, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 12. 1989. As per the said Government Order, 30% of the vacancies in the Government Departments or Government Owned Undertakings, Corporations and also in local bodies shall be set apart for women candidates and in spite of the said Government Order no adequate representation has been given to women and it is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the conduct of the respondents/Corporation would amount to hostile discrimination and denial of employment to women and therefore, the present writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents to select and appoint the petitioners to the post of conductors in the existing or future vacancies on the ground of gender equality and on the basis of G.O.No.89, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 12. 1989.
3. 1. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the respondents/Corporation has notified 80 vacancies for the post of Daily Paid Conductors on 31. 2007 prescribing age limit and the District Employment Office, Salem was requested to sponsor candidates based on reservation, including making a reference to G.O.No.89, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 12. 1989. The petitioners were among 1403 candidates sponsored by the District Employment Office, Salem and interview call letters dated 30.4.2007 were sent to the petitioners calling them to attend the interview on 15. 2007 and the petitioners have attended the interview .
3.2. It is stated that as per Rule 59(b), Appendix III of Service Rules, the qualification required for appointment of conductors is as follows:
"i) Must have passed the SSLC examination or the X Standard Public Examination (under the revised Scheme of 1979) with eligibility for admission to the Higher Secondary Course, from a recognized School in Tamil Nadu.
ii) Must possess a valid Conductors Licence, First Aid Certificate and Public Service Badge.
iii) Must have the following minimum physical standards:
a) Height .. 160 Cms.
b) Weight .. 45 Kgs.
iv) Must be free from any physical deformity."
3. 3. It is stated that the first petitioner was found to be ineligible due to lack of physical standard. As per the Rules, a candidate must have height of 160 cms, whereas the first petitioner was only having height of 157 cms and since the mandatory requirement was not complied with, the second respondent has not selected the first petitioner.
3. 4. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, it is stated that though she was having the prescribed qualification and physical standards, she has n
