GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. P B VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1984 decided that women were not getting their due share of public employment. It decided to take certain remedial measures. On 2-1-1984 it issued G.O.MS. No. 2, General Administration (Services-A) Department stating policy decisions taken by the State Government in respect of reservations for women in public services, to a specified extent. Pursuant to this policy decision, Rule 22-A was introduced in the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It reads as follows:-

(2.) Sub-rule (2) of this rule is the subject matter of challenge before us. The challenge is by the respondent No. 1 who, at the time of filing of the petition before the High Court, was a law student in Andhra University, Waltair. We are informed that he is now a practising lawyer. At the material time, however, he had registered his name in the District Employment Exchange, Visakhapatnam. He filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the above Rule on the ground that it was violative of Articles 14 and 16(4) of the Constitution and had seriously affected all male unemployed persons in the State of Andhra Pradesh. A single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the validity of Rule 22-A. In appeal before the High Court, however, a Division Bench has struck down a portion of Rule 22-A(2) as unconstitutional while upholding sub-rules (1) and (3) of rule 22-A. The portion of sub-rule (2) which is struck down is the last portion of that sub-rule containing the words "and they shall be selected to an extent of at least 30% of the posts in each category of O.C., B.C., S.C,. and S.T. quota."

(3.) Does sub-rule (2) of Rule 22-A violdate Article 14 of 16(4) Article 14 which provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law, has been the subject matter of interpretation in a number of cases before this Court as well as the High Courts. Application of this principle of equality has often proved more difficult in practice than was anticipated. It has, however, been commonly accepted that the equality clause requires that only persons who are in like circumstances should be treated equally. Where persons or groups of persons are not situated equally, to treat them as equals would itself be violative of Article 14. As a necessary fall out of this principle, classification among different groups of persons and differentiation between such classes in permissible provided (1) the classification is founded on intelligible differentia between the groups and (2) such differentia have a rational nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the statute. Article 15, however, prohibits differentiation between classes on certain grounds. It prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, casts, sex, place of birth or any of them. Clause (3) of Article 15 provides that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provisions for women and children. In other words, while Article 15(1) would prevent a State from making any discriminatory law (inter alia) on the ground of sex alone, the State, by virtue of Article 15(3), is permitted, despite Article 15(1), to make special provisions for women, thus clearly carving out a permissible departure from the rigours of Article 15(1).