Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

15. It was only in May, 2006 that the respondents notified a separate gradation list consisting of 145 only female (SI/GDs) on 1st May, 2006.

16. The petitioners have stated that representations and objections were raised by some female (Mahila) SI/GDs to the Director General of the CRPF including a representation dated 16th October, 2006 and 30th November, 2006 for maintenance of a combined gradation list of all SI/GDs, whether male or female. This request was rejected by the Director General of the CRPF by a communication dated 26th February, 2007 informing that the personnel of the CRPF were governed by the CRPF Act, 1949 and CRPF Rules, 1955. The Director General of the CRPF placed reliance on Sub-Clause ‗d' incorporated in Rule 5 (A) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 mandating that a separate cadre upto the rank of Inspector for Mahila Battalion be maintained. Mahila SI/GDs were informed that for this reason they were being promoted separately upto the rank of Inspector as per vacancies arising in Mahila ranks and are not to be considered together with their male counterparts for promotion and maintenance of seniority.

27. Rule 5(A)(d) of the CRPF Rules, 1995 in the present case discriminates against the woman members of the CRPF in a similar manner.

28. We may also refer to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported at AIR 1981 SC 1829, Air India v. Nargesh Meerza and others wherein the Court was examining the constitutionality of Air India Employees Service Regulations 46 and 47 with regard to the retirement of Air Hostesses in the event of their marriage taking place within 4 years of marriage. Though the result of the consideration by the Court was unfavourable to the respondent, however the observations of the Court on the fundamental right of equality of opportunity and permissible classification which would satisfy the test under Article 14 of the Constitution deserve to be noted in extenso and read as follows:

xxx xxx xxx‖

29. The above observations squarely apply to the working of the Rule 5(A)(d) of the CRPF Rules, 1995, so far as the petitioners who were unable to undergo the course on account of their pregnancies and thereafter are concerned. It has to be held that the impugned actions of the respondents were unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary qua these women personnel of the CRPF.

30. It has been urged at some length by Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel for the petitioner before us that while considering a challenge to the constitutionality of the rule, this Court is required to consider the real effect of the provision before arriving at a conclusion. In support of this proposition reliance is placed on the pronouncement of Supreme Court at (2013) 1 SCC 745, Namit Sharma v. Union of India wherein the Court ruled as follows: