S LALITHA SUNDARI Vs. R KETHAR NATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two revision petitioners are women who claim that they have been discriminated against because they are women.

(2.) They responded to an invitation to all female descendants of the founders' families of a Trust and they found that the post for which they had applied were filled up by the Scheme Court by appointing men. The background of the case is this : Anbanathapuram Vahaira Charities (AVC) was founded by five families hailing from the following Villages : Anbanathapuram, Enathimangalam, Pallavarayapet, Karkudy and Kanganamputhur. The trust was found with the object of performing certain charities. A Scheme decree was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai in O.S. 68/48. It was intended that the Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai shall be the Scheme Judge as far as the AVC was concerned. Subsequently, the Scheme was amended by the Scheme decree dated 6-4-1960 in O.S. 17/60. As per the provision in the Scheme, a college was established under the name of AVC college. The entire properties of the charities is administered by the Board of Trustees. An Education Committee is appointed to function alongside the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees consists of Chairman and five trustees and the Educational Committee consists of ten members. Two vacancies arose in the Education Committee. Therefore, applications were called for from the female descendants of the founders' five families. Several persons applied for the posts. Out of 27, 20 applicants alone came for the interview. Of these 20, 15 applicants were women and 5 applicants were men. The learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai appointed two men on the ground that though the women applicants had all the qualifications, as far as administration of AVC was concerned, it would be better if persons with experience are appointed. According to him, none of the women had experience. Therefore, holding that "female descendants" include men, he rejected the case of the 15 women applicants and appointed two men. Those two men are the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Aggrieved by this, two of the female applicants have filed these two revisions.

(3.) Mr. N. L. Rajah, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions submitted that this appointment is in flagrant violation of the Constitutional guarantees of equality and safeguards for women against discrimination on the ground of sex. He referred to the rules of the Management of the AVC Educational Committee. He also referred to the notice calling for applications and submitted that normal understanding of the words "female descendants" would only be, descendants who are female and cannot be construed as descendants through a female. He also submitted that the reason given for appointing the respondents 1 and 2 were totally unjustified. He referred to certain relevant provisions of the "Convention of Political Rights of Women" specifically Article 1, Article 2 and Article 3 to which India had been a signatory and had ratified. He also referred to the "Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women", CEDAW, which had expressed its concerns that despite various instruments guaranteeing gender equality, discrimination against women continues to exist. The States Parties to the Convention agreed on several Articles which condemn discrimination against women and agreed to eliminate it.