B.C. Ray, J. - (1.) This petition Is directed against the order issued by the respondent no. 2 on behalf of the Government of West Bengal directing the Public Service Commission, West Bengal to Interview 14 eligible officers mentioned therein in accordance with the programme noted therein, that is, the male candidates would be interviewed on 16th June, 1980 at 11 a.m. and the female candidates would be interviewed on 17th June 1980, at 11 a.m. for selection for promotion to the posts of Principal of the Government Teachers Training Colleges, This order and/of directions has been assailed in this writ application by the petitioner who is at present working as the officer -in -charge in the Bureau of Educational and Psychological Research at 25/3, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta -19 on the ground that the above direction and/or order compartment arising the West Bengal Educational Service as Men's branch and Women's branch is arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of the provisions of Art. 15 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was recruited in 1961 as Lecturer in the Bureau through the public service Commission after a joint interview was taken from among several men and women candidates for the specific post of Lecturer in the said Bureau. The petitioner was confirmed in the said post with effect from September 22, 1963 by the Governor. Copy of the said order of the Governor has been annexed as Annexure 'C' to the Affidavit -in -opposition sworn on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 25th March, 1981. Thereafter the petitioner was again interviewed jointly among several male and female candidates by the Public Service Commission and she was selected for the post of Assistant Professor specifically for the Bureau of Educational and Psychological Research. After her selection as an Assistant Professor she was posted in the Men's Branch and joined as professor in the said Bureau and worked as such in the Men's branch all along. It is remarkable that although her confirmation was shown In the Women's branch in the Civil list, but her appointment was vice "Dibakar Das Mahanta", a professor in the Men's Branch. This will also be evident from the letter issued by the Governor dt. 21st March, 1973 annexed as Annexure D' to the said affidavit -in -opposition. The petitioner being the senior most was put in charge of the post of Principal in the Bureau of Educational and Psychological Research as the former Principal Dr. R. C. Das, respondent No. 4, was transferred as Principal of the David Hare Training College Calcutta and subsequently he was appointed as Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Training. She was given financial and other powers as have been attached to the post of Principal as per Governor's letter No. 337 Edn - (CS) dt. 31st March, 1977. This order has been annexed as Annexure 'A' to the petition.
(2.) Since then the petitioner was working in the same capacity uptil now and she has been allowed to draw a special pay of Re. 100/ - per month for discharging her duties of the Officer -in Charge (Principal) of the Bureau of Educational and Psychological Research By a letter dated 29th May, 1980, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that the Public Service Commission, West Bengal would interview 14 eligible officers on 16th and 17th June, 1980 and that her name was included in the said list of eligible officers. It is evident from the said letter that all the male officers were included in one group and the interview of this group was fixed on 16th June. 1980 whereas all the Women officers were included in a separate group and interview of them was fixed on 17th June 1980. The criterion of promotion was primarily on seniority basis. The petitioner became suspicious about the possible discrimination on the basis of sex and she was also in apprehension of her interest being prejudicially affected by the manner in which the interview would be taken and selection would be made. On enquiry she came to know that the motive behind the said unusual procedure was to exclude the petitioner from the selection by allotment of 5 posts of principals for selection out of the 7 candidates in the Men's list and only 2 from the Women's list and that the selection would be made primarily ' an the seniority basis. The petitioner possesses the highest qualification amongst all the 14 candidates and her position in order of seniority is the 5th amongst both men and women candidates taken together. But to deprive the petitioner of any chance of selection as her position was third in the list of women candidates out of which only two candidates will be selected, the impugned order or direction has been made by the Government whereas 3 junior male candidates would get chance of selection and would eventually be selected in the Men's branch although they happen to be much junior and much less qualified both educationally and in research experience to the petitioner.
(3.) Although the petitioner appeared in the Interview on 17th June, 1980 she made several representations to the authorities concerned strongly objecting against this illegal classification and the holding of interview on the basis of this classification. On 9th June, 1980, a representation was made to the respondent No. 2 in this matter. The respondent No. 2 sent a letter to the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal, respondent No. 3 a copy of which has been forwarded to the petitioner on 28th July, 1980. It is evident from the said letter that Government after due consideration regrets that "Dr. Maya Mukherjee's request for a joint interview of the male and female officers in the Men's and Women's branch cannot be entertained by the Government." A Copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure 'D' to the petition. Thereafter the petitioner sent a letter demanding justice to the Secretary, Education Department which has been annexed as Annexure 'F' to the petition. No reply was received to the said representation. It has been pleaded that the petitioner has been working in the Men's branch all along. She was initially recruited and confirmed in the Men's branch as Lecturer. There was absolutely no distinction between Men's branch and Women's branch and for all practical purposes, the two branches were treated as amalgamated for the purpose of recruitment, emoluments, conditions of service, promotion and other incidents thereof. The segregation and distinction between the two branches on the basis of sex which was in vogue during the Pre -Independence and Pre -Constitutional days, was no longer maintained and the two branches were treated as one and the same for all practical purposes. The petitioner was confirmed as an Assistant Professor in the vacancy caused by the retirement of Smt. Suhasi Ghosh whose name was borne on, the women's branch in the civil list. But even after her selection as an Assistant Professor and her confirmation in the Women's Branch she was jointly interviewed with mala candidates by the Public Service Commission in October, 1975 in the West Bengal Educational Service for the post of a Professor in the Bureau, It has been submitted that the purported order directing the classification of the appointments in the post of Principal as Men's Branch and Women's Branch and the allotment of vacancies arbitrarily on its basis and the direction to the public Service Commission for holding interview on two different dates on the basis of the said classification is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory as well as it is (sic)tive of the provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution of, India.;