VASANT AMBADAS HANCHATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are teachers in private schools, have challenged the validity of Rule 3(4) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The said sub -rule reads as under - 3(4) In the case of a girls' secondary school or Junior College of Education for Women, the seniormost lady teacher fulfilling the conditions laid down in clause (b) of Sub -rule (1) and having satisfactory record of service, shall be appointed as the Head of that school irrespective of her seniority vis -a -vis the male teachers. The validity of this rule is challenged on the ground that it is violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) A similar question came up for the consideration before a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Vinayak Ramchandra Sudame v. State of Maharashtra (1985) Spl. C.A. No. 1490 of 1977 (Nagpur Bench) decided on February 21, 1985 by V.A. Mohta and S.W. Puranik JJ. (Unrep.). In the said case the exception to Rule 61.2(a) of the Secondary Schools Code Was challenged, which reads as under: - Exception: In the case of a Girls' school, that is a school run exclusively for girls, the seniormost lady teacher, fulfilling the conditions laid down in Rule 61.1(a) above and having satisfactory record of service shall be appointed as Head Mistress of that school irrespective of her seniority vis -a -vis the male teachers. The Division Bench consisting of V.A. Mohta and S.W. Puranik JJ. held that the exception to the said rule in the Secondary Schools Code is valid, In the said judgment it is also observed that a similar provision finds place even in Rule 3(4) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. Therefore, in substance, the validity of Rule 3(4) is also upheld by the Division Bench'.

(3.) IT is not possible for us to accept any of these contentions. As already observed, the Division Bench of this Court in Vinayak Ramchandra Sudame v. The State of Maharashtra (supra) has considered this aspect of the matter in detail. By now it is well -settled that what articles 15(7) and 16(2) prohibit is that discrimination should not be made only and only on the ground of sex. These articles of the Constitution do not prohibit the State from making discrimination on the ground of sex coupled with other considerations. (See Air India v. Nergesh Meerza : (1981)IILLJ314SC). The Division Bench, after noticing all the cases in the field, viz. Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay : [1954]1SCR930 , State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas : (1976)ILLJ376SC , , Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (supra), Shamsher Singh Hukam Singh v. The Punjab State and Walter Alfred Baid v. Union of India A.I.R. [1976] Di. 302 ultimately came to the following conclusion: