Madras HC upholds reservation for women

The Madras High Court has upheld the provision of reservation of 30% of posts for women in the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and said the rule was in consonance with Article 15 (3) and cannot be said to be in any way a violation of Article 16 (2) of the Constitution.

Dismissing a writ petition challenging the reservation, the First Bench, comprising Chief Justice H L Gokhale and Justice D Murugesan, said it did not find any substance in the petition. Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, was fully constitutional.

In his petition, G Vijayaraghavan of Tirumangalam here, a law graduate, who belongs to the Most Backward Caste (MBC), submitted that he desired to enter government service as a Group-I officer.

In August 2007, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission issued an advertisement in a Tamil newspaper for various posts. It provided 30 per cent reservation for women. In the main examination, the cut-off mark for men (MBC) was fixed at 196.5 and for women, 180.

The petitioner further said, women with lesser marks could get selected, denying the posts for male candidates with higher marks.

Reservation for women denied the fundamental right of male candidates to be considered for the vacancies reserved for women. It was illegal and unconstitutional as Art 16 (2) prohibited discrimination exclusively based on sex.

The authorities submitted that Art 15 (1) laid down prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The very provision provided in sub-Article (3) that the State could make special provisions for women and children, socially and educationally backward classes and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and that such provision shall not be affected by any other provision in Art 15.

The Bench said the Supreme Court has held that since Articles 15 (1) and 15 (3) went together, the protection of Art 15 (3) would be applicable to employment with the State falling under Articles 16 (1) and 16 (2) (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Constitution. Recently, in another case, the Supreme Court reiterated that Art 16 was limited in its scope than Art 15 since it was confined to office or employment with the State whereas Art 15 covered the entire range of State activities.