RAHAMATHUNISA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for the following reliefs.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 to the effect that the reliefs prayed for in this petition should be denied to the petitioner on the ground of laches. We propose to consider this preliminary objection first.

(3.) We shall now state that facts necessary for considering the preliminary objection raised. The petitioner entered Government service in the Department of Education of the erstwhile State of Mysore on 3-11-1932 Respondents 3 to 8 entered service. Hence she is senior to respondents 3 to 8. At the time the entered service there was a Rule to the effect that no lady should be promoted as a District Educational Officer. Even after the Constitution came into force this Rule was not altered in view of the said Rule respondent 3 and one Thimmiah who were junior to the petitioner were promoted as D.E.Os on 10-10-1952. The said Thimmiah had retired before the filing of this petition. One Kalappaji who was also junior to the petitioner who has since retired was promoted as D.E.O. on 4-12-1952. The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th respondents were promoted as D.E.Os on 5-12-1952, 3-1-1953, 5-4-1954, 2-7-1954 and 7-7-1954 respectively. Meanwhile the petitioner was agitating for her promotion. She war urging on the Government that the rule which prohibited the promotion of ladies as D.E.Os is an invalid rule in view of Art. 18 of the Constitution. Finally, her plea was accepted and she was promoted as a D.E.O. on 28-7-1954. But it was not given any retrospective effect. It came into effect from 28-7-1954. Therefore, as D.E.O., she happened to be junior to respondents 3 to 8. She was temporarily (sic) as a Deputy Director of Public Instruction was reverted to her substantive post on 9-12-1962. It is only thereafter she filed this petition on 15th January 1963. The question for consideration is whether in view of this petition on 15th January 1963. The question for consideration is whether in view of this inordinate delay we should grant the petitioner the reliefs prayed for by her assuming that the rule which prohibited the promotion of ladies as D.E.Os became void on 26-1-1950.