Judgment Intelligence
Petition Allowed- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 9 September 2024
- Bench
- Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Articles 14, 15(1), 16(1), 16(2) and 21
Writ petition allowed; respondents to consider the petitioners and all similarly situated women appointed as Teacher Grade III up to 1998 for promotion to Senior Teacher Grade II against the 2008-09 and 2009-10 vacancies, with consequential benefits, within three months of receipt of a certified copy; no costs (paras 24-27).
Key holdings
- Separate seniority lists with a 1998 cut-off for men and 1986 for women are sex discrimination (para 11).
- A classification is unconstitutional if its effect entrenches inequality between men and women (paras 16, 20).
- Discrimination grounded in gender stereotypes cannot survive Article 15(1), following Navtej Singh Johar (paras 18-19).
- Consideration for promotion is a fundamental right, as held in Ajay Kumar Shukla (para 22).
- Relief extends to all similarly situated women Teacher Grade III appointed up to 1998 (para 24).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- C.B Muthamma v. Union of India (1979) 4 SCC 260
Rules restricting women officers of the Indian Foreign Service, including in promotion, were discriminatory; gender is not a valid criterion for differential treatment in public employment.
- Anuj Garg & Ors v. Hotel Association of India & Ors (2008) 3 SCC 1
A law barring women from employment in premises serving liquor was struck down; measures resting on stereotypes about sexual roles call for heightened scrutiny.
- State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) 1 SCC 1
Cited for the traditional test of reasonable classification under Article 14: intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object.
View all precedents (6)
- Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University (1989) 2 SCC 145
Cited for the proposition that a classification whose object is illogical, unfair and unjust is unreasonable.
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1
Article 14 has substantive content beyond the classification test; a measure is judged by its effect on fundamental rights, and discrimination founded on sex stereotypes violates Article 15(1).
- Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai & Ors (2022) 12 SCC 579
Though there is no fundamental right to promotion, consideration for promotion has evolved as a fundamental right.



