Decided on August 26,1993

Sulakshana Jasrotia Appellant
STATE Respondents


- (1.)THE petitioner Smt. Sulakshana Jasrotia, working as a teacher in the grade of Rs. 1200 -2040 in Govt. Middle School (Boys) Barnoti, District Kathua, seeks the writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to promote her to the non -gazette Master Grade of Rs. 1760 -3280 with effect from 17 -10 -1992, on the ground that she has passed M.A. in Hindi in the year 1973, B.Ed, in 1979 and M.A. in Dogri in the year 1988. She was appointed as a Teacher on 23 -3 -1974 when she was M.A. in Hindi.; The other qualification were acquired by the petitioner during her service as a teacher. She is an Orthopaedically Handicapped lady being an old patient of the post -polio residual paralysis involving right upper limb which is flab. The respondents vide order No. DSEJ/ANG/ 98 of 1992 dt. 17 -10 -1992 promoted the trained post -graduate/trained graduate teachers to the grade of Rs.1760 -3200 which is technically termed as Master Grade. That 366 male teachers and 156 female teachers in the open category have been promoted to the Master Grade vide the aforesaid order. According to the petitioner, the last date of appointment in case of the male candidates has been taken as 11 -4 -1974, whereas the last date of appointment in case of the female candidates as 21 -2 -1974, thereby arbitrarily depriving the petitioner of her promotion, although her date of appointment is 23 -3 -1974. Therefore the State -respondent has denied her promotion by causing a sex discrimination against the female teachers when the male teachers appointed in between 11 -4 -1974 and 21 -2 -74 were promoted and ignored the female teachers who also could be promoted during the said period. Moreover, no reservation has been made in favor of the physically handicapped persons, though such a reservation has been kept for the said category as envisaged under General Departments communication No. GD(EST)RB/25/77 dated 16 -4 -1977 for appointment to the non -gazette posts. The impugned order has accordingly been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same is bad in law, because the date of appointment for the purpose of promotion of the male teachers has been taken on account of sex -discrimination against female teachers and the petitioner who was appointed on 23 -3 -1974 has been arbitrarily deprived of the promotion opportunity vis ƒ   -vis her male counterparts. The impugned order is a special and typical example of the constitutionally and judicially rejected practice of sex -discrimination and is thus violative of the petitioners right to equality as enshrined under Article 14 and 16 (2) of the Constitution of India. The impugned order is further bad in law to the extent that it does not extend the benefit of 3% reservation in non -gazette posts to the physically handicapped persons, as has been envisaged under General Departments communication dated 16 -4 -1977.
(2.)AFTER rule nisi was issued, Mr, S.K. Anand, GA, appeared and filed objections on behalf of the respondents. The writ petition was resisted on the ground that the 3% quota is meant only for the initial appointments, when a person enters into the Government service in any department either directly or through the State Recruitment Board and the said 3% quota is not meant for promotion to in -service employees. Having regard to the large number of male candidates in the Education Department, previously 10% quota was reserved for the female candidates and now with the expansion of the Department and male candidates serving in the Department the quota has been considerably enhanced from 10% to 30% and if the plea of the petitioner is accepted and equal number of female candidates are also promoted in a particular promotion zone, then it will create anomalies in the department and also discrimination against the male candidates in as much as a male candidate who is appointed in the year 1970 may not come in the consideration zone for the promotion to the Masters grade and a female candidate who is appointed in the year 1980 may even be successful in getting the next higher grade.
(3.)IT was resolved by learned counsel for the parties that the writ petition may, be disposed of at the admission stage for no counter was required to be filed by the respondents other than the objections filed by them.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and also had a thoughtful consideration over the record on the file.Simply the grievance of the petitioner is that the lady teachers working in the educational line doing the same job, as is being done by the male teachers, are being discriminated against in as much as while they are called upon to do the same work as their counter parts (male teachers), they have been denied promotion to the post of Senior Teachers as two cut off dates have been taken for the purposes of promotion whereas the last date of appointment in the case of female candidates has been taken 21 -2 -1974 and the last date of appointment for promotion in the case of male candidates has been taken as 11 -4 -1974, and thereby the petitioner who on 23 -3.1974. Has been arbitrarily denied the promotion was appointed to a Master Grade when she was legally entitled to be promoted on the cut off date on which the male teachers have been promoted.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.