- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)These appeals have been preferred by the Union of India and others against the common judgment dated 24th May, 2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 8744/2011 and W.P.(C) No.1368/2012. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court, declared Rule 5(A) (1)(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'CRPF Rules, 1955') unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and held the action of the respondents (appellants herein) in drawing up a separate seniority list of Mahila employees and consequential actions affecting the writ petitioners (respondents herein) to be unconstitutional.
(3.)The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
The respondents are females (hereinafter referred to as 'Mahila') and after due selection they were appointed in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Sub-Inspector General Duty (SI/GD) alongwith their Male counterparts. Some of them were later promoted to the higher post of Inspector. On 1st May, 2006, the appellants notified a separate gradation list consisting of 145 female (SI/GDs).

Being aggrieved some of the Mahila-Sub-Inspectors submitted representation for maintenance of a combined gradation list which was rejected by Director-General of CRPF by letter dated 26th Feb., 2007. The Director General placed reliance on Rule 5A(1) (d) of CRPF Rules, 1955, stating that the said rule mandates that there shall be a separate cadre upto the rank of Inspector for Mahila. It was informed that for this reason, they were being promoted separately upto the rank of Inspector as per vacancies arising in Mahila ranks and are not to be considered together with their male-counterparts for promotion and maintenance of seniority. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed writ petitions challenging the validity of Amended Rule 5(A)(1)(d) of CRPF Rules, 1995 for being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.