In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court criticized the State government for discriminating against female teachers in promotions, citing the disparity in the number of girls’ and boys’ schools.
The Court reviewed a 2009 petition challenging the State education department’s decision to create separate seniority lists for male and female teachers. Male teachers appointed up to 1998 were considered for promotions, while only female teachers appointed up to 1996 were included.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted that this practice not only resulted in gender discrimination but also violated the right to equality for female teachers. He stated:
“Hence, the respondents have violated their fundamental rights contained under Article 14, 15(1), 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Such act on the part of the respondents is quite arbitrary, unjustified and is liable to be deprecated.”
The Court emphasized that discrimination based on sex constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights as outlined in Part III of the Constitution.
“Article 14 of the Constitution addresses equality between persons, Article 15(1) forbids the state from discriminating against anyone based on their sex… and Article 16(1) and (2) deal with equal opportunity in matters of public employment. These prohibitions are unqualified and absolute,” the Court added.
Critique of State Justifications
The State’s argument—that the need for male teachers was greater due to a higher number of boys’ schools—did not persuade the Court. It criticized the assumption that only male teachers are competent to teach in boys’ schools, stating:
“Though on the face of it the rule makes a classification based on the demand of teachers belonging to a particular gender, the impact of that classification falls on female teachers… The above classification unjustly implies that only male teachers are competent enough to teach in boys’ schools, thus treating female teachers as a substandard class in comparison to their counterpart.”
The Court pointed out that this classification, though appearing innocuous, disproportionately favored male teachers based on outdated gender stereotypes rather than evidence of better educational outcomes.
Conclusion and Directives
The Court found clear evidence of discrimination and reinforced the State’s obligation to uphold gender equality in promotions. It stated:
“Unlike the freedoms in Article 19 of the Constitution, there is no scope for restricting the absolute scope of the rights under Article 15(1) and 16(2). The right of women should not be denied on fanciful assumptions of what work the woman could do and could not do.”
In light of these findings, the Court ordered
“The respondents are directed to consider the case not only of the petitioners but also of all the similarly situated female teachers appointed as Teacher Gr. III up to the year 1998 for their promotion to the post of Senior Teacher Gr. II for the vacancies of the year 2008-09 and 2009-10 and grant them all consequential benefits.”
