LAKHWINDWERJEET KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the Rule Serial No. 3 (IV) Appendix B designation of post (Agricultural Master) of the Punjab State Education Class-III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978 (Annexure P-4). The basic challenge is that the expression Agricultural Master used in Appendix B prescribing qualification B.Sc. Agriculture has been incorporated and confined to Male Master by excluding the category of Mistress. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction to respondent No. 2 to consider her case for the promotion/appointment for the post of Agricultural Mistress by treating her equal to the Male ETT teachers.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been working as a female E.T.T. Teacher in District Ferozepur. She acquired qualification of B.Sc. Agriculture from Punjabi University, Patiala in the year 1995 (Annexure P-1). She also passed B.Ed. from the Panjab University, Chandigarh in the year 1999 (Annexure P-2). She was selected and appointed as ETT teacher vide order dated 21.12.2001 and she joined her duty as such on 24.12.2001 (Annexure P-3). For further promotion from the post of ETT teacher, rules have been framed which are known as "The Punjab State Education Class III (School cadre) Service Rules, 1978 (as amended in 1995) (for brevity 1978 Rules). Rule 3 provides for promotion has of an ETT teacher to the post of Master/Mistress. Accordingly, the case for promotion in the Master/Mistress cadre were called by respondent No. 2 on 21.2.2005 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner being fully eligible for the post of Agriculture Mistress submitted her case for the promotion in the office of the Block Education Officer, Ferozepur, (Annexure P-7). It was accordingly forwarded to the DPI/respondent No. 2 on 15.3.2005 much before the last date which was 31.3.2005. However, only male ETT teachers were promoted, who were appointed as ETT teacher much later than the petitioner. It is undisputed that no female ETT teacher was promoted. A copy of the order dated 24.8.2007 has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. In view of the aforesaid, action of the respondents has been made subject matter of challenge.

(3.) In response to the notice of motion respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement. In para No. 2 of the preliminary submissions, the categorical stand taken by the respondents is that there is no provision in the 1978 Rules for the appointment of female candidate against the post of Agriculture Master. It has been claimed in a bald manner that there is no violation of the constitution as the nature of duties of Agriculture Masters requires some agricultural operations in practical work which cannot be performed by the female mistress. The further stand of the respondents is that the practical work is the dominant aspect of teaching of agriculture in schools and has been allocated for 60% marks in examination and theoretical portion covers only 40% marks. It is further stated that it is in harmony with the policy of the Government to employ only female teachers in certain faculties of teaching such as in the subject of Home Science where male teachers are neither employed nor promoted.