URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order passed under Rule 24 of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 which provides that women shall not be eligible for appointment to the ministerial establishment of the Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court. The actual order is as follows:

(2.) On April 5, 1990 an advertisement was issued by the District Judge, Gorakhpur inviting applications to fill up Class III posts in the judgeship. On the same day on April 5, 1990 the District Judge, Gorakhpur has sent a communication to the Regional Employment Officer, Gorakhpur forwarding him conditions of eligibility of the candidates. One of the conditions imposed by the District Judge was that no woman candidate will be eligible for Class III posts. When petitioner wanted to apply for the said post and she approached the Regional Employment Officer, she was informed that she cannot apply for the said post as she is not eligible according to the communication issued by the District Judge dated April 5, 1990. Consequently it is this communication which has given rise to the present controversy. It is not disputed that the communication dated April 5, 1990 has been sent by the District Judge, Gorakhpur in view of the order quoted above passed under Rule 24 of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947.

(3.) Article (1) of the Constitution of India provides that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III, shall to the extent of such inconsistency, be void. Admittedly the impugned order was passed in exercise of the powers under Clause (b) of Section 275 of the Government of India Act, 1935. This order was consequently passed prior to the commencement of the Constitution.