Separate posts for men and women no longer valid after Rule amendment: HC 

More than 14 years after the Punjab and Haryana High Court came out with a judgment upholding separate posts for men and women candidates for the posts of DPE (Master), Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi has ruled that it was no longer applicable following amendment of the Punjab Education Service (School Branch) Rules, 1978.

Justice Sethi was hearing a bunch of nine petitions challenging the action of the department concerned, whereby 873 posts of DPE (Master) advertised vide an ad dated December 31, 2016, were being filled on the basis of joint merit list of men and women candidates.

Among other things, it was contended that the action was contrary to Punjab State Education Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978, as interpreted by the Division Bench in the case of “Neelam Rani versus State of Punjab and others” decided on January 8, 2010.

Referring to the judgment, the petitioners had contended that 50 per cent of the advertised posts were to be filled from the joint merit list of men and women. The remaining posts were to be filled up from the women candidates only. But the respondent-State prepared a common merit list.

Taking up the petitions, Justice Sethi asserted that the rules before an amendment provided a clear bifurcation of posts for men and women candidates, facilitating separate allocations for each gender. But separate bifurcation stood amended and only one cadre of 27,213 posts of master/mistress was to be filled up following the amendment on July 8, 1995.

Justice Sethi asserted that the judgment in Neelam Rani’s case was pronounced on the basis of un-amended 1978 Rules, wherein it was held that women would be eligible for posts created for men. But the posts created for women would be filled exclusively from women.

“The judgment cannot be brought into operation once the separation of posts in favour of men and women was taken out vide amendment dated July 8, 1995. Once, no separate post for men and women exist under the 1978 Rules after the amendment the contention that there still will be 50 per cent ratio for filling up the total number of posts advertised between men and women, stands contrary to the 1978 Rules as it existed on the date when the advertisement was issued, in pursuance to which the appointment is being claimed by the petitioners,” Justice Sethi asserted.

The court said a perusal of the 1978 Rules would show that it prescribed only men and women branches. There was no percentage or quota fixed for the two branches. Bifurcating the posts between the two branches, in the absence of any such stipulation, would be outside the scope of the amended 1978 Rules. “Therefore, the contention to reserve 50 per cent of the posts especially for women on the strength of Rule 3 of 1978 Rules cannot be accepted.”