Bilju A.T v. UOI and Ors

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J MAY 24, 2013 Sv/dk/mk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 24th May, 2013 + W.P.(C) 8744/2011 BILJU A.T. ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms.Punam Singh and Ms.Amrita Prakash, Advs. versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Nishchal, Adv. + W.P.(C) 1368/2012 MANORMA SINGH AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms.Punam Singh and Ms.Amrita Prakash, Advs. versus UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Nishchal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. In the year 1979, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the judgment reported at (1979) 4 SCC 260, Miss C.B. Muthamma, I.F.S. v. Union of India and others stated thus: ―This writ petition by Miss Muthamma, a senior member of the Indian Foreign Service, bespeaks a story which makes one wonder whether Articles 14 and 16 belong to myth or reality. The credibility of constitutional mandates shall not be shaken by governmental action or inaction but it is the effect of the grievances of Miss Muthamma that sex prejudice against Indian womanhood pervades the service rules even a third of a century after Freedom. There is some basis for the charge of bias in the rules and this makes the ominous indifference of the executive to bring about the banishment of discrimination in the heritage of service rules. If high officials lose hopes of equal justice under the rules, the legal lot of the little Indian, already priced out of the expensive judicial market, is best left to guess...‖ The present petition illustrates that despite the passage of 34 years since this pronouncement and more than 65 years of independence later, the position remains the same. 2. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged Rule 5(A)(d) of the CRPF Rules, 1995 which is framed under the provision of Section 18 of the CRPF Act, 1949, whereby a separate cadre for women incumbents has been prescribed upto the rank of Inspector for the Mahila Battalion. It is pointed out that this Rule was incorporated by virtue of a statutory amendment effected on 23rd August, 1989. 3. The challenge, as premised by the petitioner, inter alia, is on the grounds of violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent to maintain a common seniority list for SI/GD Male as well as Female (Mahila) and to grant promotion to the petitioners to the ranks of Assistant Commandant at par with their male counter parts who were appointed pursuant to the same selection process conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and assigned the same duties, with all consequential benefits. 4. For the purposes of convenience, we may first set out the Rule which has been assailed before us. ―Rule 5 (A)(d): There shall be a separate cadre upto the rank of Inspector for Mahila Battalion under the existing rules and regulations.‖ 5. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are briefly noticed hereafter. The petitioners participated in a combined Preliminary (Graduate Level) Examination, 2000 conducted on 27th February, 2000 by the Staff Selection Commission. This examination was followed by an advertisement published in the Employment News dated 5-11, August, 2000 inviting applications from candidates who had qualified in the Preliminary Examination for Combined Main (Graduate Level) Examination 2000. As per the advertisement, the Main examination was to be held on 29th October, 2000 and 3rd – 5th November, 2000. The selection process was being undertaken for the post of the Sub Inspectors in Central Police Organisations in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 alongwith some other posts. We may note that the Central Police Organisation includes the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), the Border Security Force (BSF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). 6. It is noteworthy that no distinction or separation was drawn so far as the applicatio