SHEEBA KUTTIATAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are candidates, who are desirous of applying for the post of Villageman, in the Revenue Department. The Public Service Commission invited applications for appointment to the said post, by Ext. P1 notification dated 31-12-2005. But, there was a stipulation in it, to the effect that women are not eligible to apply for the post. The petitioners have got all the prescribed qualifications for appointment to the said post. But, because of the above stipulation, they are ineligible to apply. The P.S.C. has issued the notification, based on Ext. P5 Government order dated 28-6-1973, prescribing the qualifications and method of appointment to the post of Villageman, in the Revenue Department. Ext. P5 order provides the method of appointment as direct recruitment from male candidates only. In view of the said stipulation contained in that order, the P.S.C. has included a condition in Ext. P1 notification to the effect that women are ineligible to apply for the post. The petitioners attack the said stipulation, alleging that the same is arbitrary and discriminatory and it offends their fundamental rights, guaranteed under Art.14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Special reference is made to Art.15, which prohibits discrimination only on the basis of sex. So, they seek a declaration that Ext. P5 is ultra vires and unconstitutional. They also pray for issuing a writ of certiorari, quashing Ext. P1 notification.

(2.) The Public Service Commission has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is submitted that the P.S.C. is bound by the method of appointment, prescribed in Ext. P5 order, which is produced by it, as Ext. R3(a). It has produced Ext. R3(b) letter also, along with its counter affidavit. The P.S.C., by the said letter, brought to the notice of the Government that the condition that women are ineligible to apply for the post of Villageman, is irrational and requires reconsideration. But, it appears, the Government have not taken any steps in this regard, so far. Since the point involved is only a pure question of law, the Government have not filed any counter affidavit in this Writ Petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions of this Court in Rajamma v. State of Kerala ( 1983 KLT 457 ), Omana Oomen v. FACT Ltd. (1990(1) KLT 614) and Mariamma v. Hindustan Latex Ltd. ( 1993 (1) KLT 899 ). In the decision in Rajamma v. State of Kerala (1983 KLT 457), this Court considered the validity of a note under R.5(b) of the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service, as it stood then. The said note reads as follows: