Gujarat High Court
B.R. Acharya And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 30 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: (1988)1GLR33
JUDGMENT R.C. Mankad, J.
1. The petitioners, who are Probation Officers in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700, have filed this petition claiming promotion to the higher post carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 550-900, mainly on the ground that the officers junior to them are promoted to the higher post.
2. It appears that in the Directorate of Social Defence, there is a common cadre of officers in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700, which cadre consists of Probation Officers under the Probation of Offenders Act and other posts. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Probation Officer on February 1, 1964 and petitioner No. 2 on January 7, 1963. Both the petitioners were later on confirmed in the said posts. There is another common cadre in the Directorate of Social Defence carrying pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 to which promotion is made from the lower common cadre in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700. There are about 10 posts carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 and they have been pooled together for the purpose of recruitment. These posts are filled in by direct selection and promotion as per the Government Notification No. EST/1064/33492(12) Chh dated February 9, 1970. The Directorate of Social Defense is concerned with social security of men and women and it runs various institutions such as after care hostels, home for crippled children, home for mentally deficient children, District Shelters and Reception Centres. Reception centres have been established under the programme of social and moral hygiene and after care services. Women who are destitutes, deserted unmarried mothers, victimised, ill-treated, rejected and also those who are in moral danger are admitted to these institutions. These centres are also declared as "Protective Homes" under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. The services which are rendered to these women include education, vocational training, treatment and rehabilitation, for which no charges are recovered. It is stated that there are seven reception centres in Palanpur, Palitana, Surendranagar, Godhra, Bharuch, Cambay and Vansda, where only lady officers are required to be appointed as Lady Superintendents as heads of the institutions.
3. There were common recruitment rules for Superintendents/Lady Superintendents for District Shelters, State Home and Reception Centres. These rules, it appears, were framed under Government Resolution dated October 3, 1959. Thereafter by Government Resolution dated February 9, 1970, separate Recruitment Rules were framed for Superintendents of District Shelters. So far as recruitment of Lady Superintendents for Reception Homes was concerned, the aforesaid common Recruitment Rules continued to apply. The said common Recruitment Rules provide for two sources of recruitment, namely, (i) by nomination; and (ii) by promotion of Suitable members of Social Defence Department. The grievance of the petitioners is that Lady Officers who were junior to them in the common cadre were promoted to the higher post of Lady Superintendents, while they continued to be in the same post carrying lower pay-scale. Their further grievance is that even some of the male officers who were junior to them were given promotion to higher posts ignoring their rights. The contention of the petitioners is that they should be considered to be eligible for appointment to the post of Lady Superintendent and promotions given to the Lady Officers who were Junior to them to such posts should be quashed and set aside. It was further contended that in any case, they should be promoted or deemed to have been promoted from the date their juniors were promoted to the higher posts.
4. It is clear from the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State that there are certain posts which are meant only for Lady Officers. The institutions, where destitute women, unmarried mothers, etc. are kept, are headed by Lady Superintendent. Since the post is of Lady Superintendent, only Lady Officers are considered eligible for such posts. The petitioners, however, contend that they should not be discriminated only on the ground of sex. They should also be considered eligible for promotion to such post. This claim made by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
5. The institutions which are headed by Lady Superintendents are exclusively for women, and it is for the Government to decide as a matter of policy whether or not such institutions should be headed by only lady officers. Merely because at some stage there is a common cadre in which the officers of both the sexes are appointed, does not mean that all posts in the higher cadre must also be filled in by persons belonging to both the sexes. Having regard to the nature of duties to be performed, it is open to the State Government to decide that the institutions which are exclusively meant for women should be headed by only women or lady officers. The Government cannot be compelled to appoint male officers to head such institutions, if it does not consider it advisable to do so. If a special provision is made for women, the petitioners cannot make grievance that they have been discriminated against. Incidentally it may be pointed out that Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Clause (3) of the said Article however, provides : "Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children." I, therefore, do not find any substance in the petitioners' contention that they should be considered to be eligible for promotion to the post of Lady Superintendent.
6. So far as the petitioners' claim for promotion to the higher post is concerned, it is stated in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State and the Director of Social Defence that the petitioners have not been promoted to the higher post as the Departmental Selection Committee ('D.S.C.' for short) did not find them fit for such promotion. There is no reason to disbelieve this statement made in the affidavit of the Director of Social Defence. It appears that so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he was dismissed from service by an order dated August 31, 1977. He was, however, reinstated in service on October 16, 1979. It appears that some persons who were junior to petitioner No. 1 were promoted between the date of his dismissal from service and his reinstatement in service. It further appears that by an order dated March 17, 1980, punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect was imposed on petitioner No. 1. Penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect was again imposed on petitioner No. 1 by an order dated August 5, 1980. However, as already pointed out above, apart from the above punishments, petitioner No. 1 was not found fit for promotion by the D.S.C. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it is stated that he became due for consideration for promotion in January 1979. He was, however, not found fit for promotion by the D.S.C. consisting of Director, Deputy Director and Assistant Director of Social Defence. Petitioner No. 2's case was again considered for promotion in July 1979, but at that time also the D.S.C, of which the Joint Secretary to Government, Department of Social Welfare was one of the members, did not find petitioner No. 2 fit for promotion to the higher cadre. It would thus appear that promotions have been denied to the petitioners on merits.
7. There is no allegation that the respondents have acted mala fide in denying promotions to the petitioners. I, therefore, do not see any merit in the petitioners' contention that they should have been promoted to the higher post from the date their juniors were promoted. Since I do not find merit in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, the petition deserves to be rejected]
8. In the result, this petition fails and is rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief shall stand vacated. No order as to costs.