Female Lecturer Cannot Be Denied Promotion Because of Her Gender; Merit-Based Seniority Applies: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner was selected as a Lecturer through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission at merit No. 4 and served throughout in boys' institutions (para 12). When the seniority list for promotion to Principal was prepared, her merit position was disregarded and two male lecturers at merit Nos. 8 and 31 were promoted (para 12). The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal rejected her appeal on 22.10.2014, relying on Rule 6, under which promotions for Boys and Girls Institutions (Schedules I and II) are made separately; as a woman she was treated as falling under Schedule II (para 13). The State argued that she had not challenged the Rules (para 10).

Rule 28(3) provides that the seniority of persons directly recruited in one selection follows the order of the Commission's list under Rule 20, and the Court found that it makes no distinction between male and female Lecturers (para 15). Nor does Rule 4(4), which creates separate cadres for Boys and Girls Institutions, bar her promotion (para 15).As Rule 28(3) does not provide for a separate seniority list for women, the classification drawn from Schedules I and II "has no legal bearing" (para 19). Drawing on C.B. Muthamma and Anuj Garg (paras 17-18), and on Navtej Singh Johar for the rule that a provision is judged by its effect and that discrimination founded on stereotypes about the role of the sex cannot survive Article 15(1) (paras 21-22), the Court held this a clear case of discrimination barred by Articles 14, 15(1) and 16(2), leaving no scope to differentiate between the sexes in appointment and promotion (para 23). Relying on Ajay Kumar Shukla, it noted that consideration for promotion has evolved into a fundamental right (para 24). Not considering the petitioner violated Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 (para 25).