Rajasthan HC Quashes Order Denying Promotion To Female Lecturer Due To Gender, Directs State To Rectify All Discriminatory Rules & Policies

Expressing "pain" on the prevalence of gender bias, the Rajasthan High Court issued a mandamus to the State to take an immediate policy decision to rectify shortcomings in policies/rules leading to discriminatory practices against women performing the same duties as their male counterparts, but who are denied equivalent benefits.

In doing so the court set aside the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal that denied promotion to a lecturer to the post of Principal solely due to her gender and placement in the cadre of girls' institutions, terming it a violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21, of the Constitution of India.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said:

"this Court feels pain to observe that gender bias is still prevailing in the social world. Discrimination with women and girls still persists in many ways through policies, social norms and practices. An equal world is one where males and females, boys and girls enjoy similar resources, treated and rewarded equally. By giving them their equal rights and making their voices heard, we are one step closer to an enabled world. By supporting efforts to promote gender equality, men can help in creating an inclusive and equitable society for everyone. Time has come to give equal rights to everyone be he/ she may a male or female or third gender.A general mandamus is hereby issued to the State of Rajasthan, directing to take immediate policy decision and action to address and rectify the existing irregularities and deficiencies in various Rules, Regulations, and Policies, inasmuch as, such shortcomings have led to discriminatory practices against females who perform the same work and duties as their male counterparts, yet do not receive the equivalent benefits, provided to males". 

Terming it yet another example of "gross discrimination" between female and male Lecturers, the court noted that in the present case while the less qualified male lecturers were promoted to the position of Principal, the much deserving petitioner–a female government school teacher–had been denied promotion solely due to her gender and placement in the cadre of girls' institutions.

"The material available on record indicates that the petitioner secured merit No.4 when she was selected by the RPSC for her appointment on the post of Lecturer. She was given posting on the said post in various boys institutions and remained posted in boys institution throughout her service career. The problem evolved before the petitioner, when the seniority list was prepared by the respondents for promotion to the post of Principal and her higher position in merit was discarded and less meritorious candidates, i.e., Neeraj Kumar Sharma (Merit No.8) and Ashok Kumar Joshi (Merit No.31) were granted promotion on the post of Principal," it noted. 

The court noted that there is "no distinction" between male or female Lecturers and there is no bar in getting promotion to the higher post on the basis of Rule 4(4) of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules; Rule 4(4) similarly deals with two Schedules, i.e., Schedule-I for Boys Institutions and Schedule-II for Girls Institutions.

"Therefore, a female should not be placed at a disadvantage simply because of her gender, especially when she is more meritorious than the other candidates (male)", the court said.

It said "making a discrimination between male and female candidates on the basis of their gender, for the purpose of promotion in Boys or Girls Institutions, amounts to violation of the provisions of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Such an action on the part of the respondents is quite arbitrary, unjustified and the same is liable to be deprecated”.

The petitioner was appointed as a lecturer and was posted in boys institutions where she remained throughout her career. However, when the seniority list was prepared for promotion, her name was not present. Rather, names of less meritorious male counterparts was considered. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of filing an appeal which was rejected. Hence, she moved the high court. 

“The petitioner herein, a female Lecturer, posted in Boys institution, has been denied promotion to the post of Principal, only because she is a female, falling in Schedule-II attached to Rule(4) of the Rules of 1970. Since No discrimination has been caused under the provisions of Rule 28 (3) of the Rules of 1970 for preparing a different seniority list for female Lecturer, the so called classification made by the respondents on the basis of Schedules-I & II, has no legal bearing...If any ground of discrimination, whether direct or indirect, is founded on a stereotypical understanding of the role of the sex, it would not be distinguishable from the discrimination which is prohibited by Article 15 on the grounds only of sex.In the considered opinion of this court, this is a clear case of discrimination, which not only falls within the perview of Article 14 of the Constitution but is also specifically prohibited by Article 15(1) and Article 16(2) of the Constitution,” the court added. 

The Court further referred to Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v Arvind Rai & Ors. wherein it was held that though right to promotion was not a fundamental right but consideration for promotion had evolved as a fundamental right.

In this background, the Court held that there was no scope to justify differentiating between a male and a female in the matter of appointment and promotion. The right of women shall not be denied on fanciful assumptions of what work the woman could do or not.

It thus allowed the petition and directed the State to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Principal, as per her seniority, with effect from the date on which the male lecturers, junior to her, have been granted promotion to the post of Principal and also provide her all the consequential benefits.

Title: Smt. Rajani Bhardwaj v Director, Secondary Education

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 168

Click Here To Read/Download Order