VIJAY LAKSHMI versus PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1034 · Decided: 23-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
VIJA Y LAKSHMI 
v. 
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 
[M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Articles I 4, I 5(3) and I 6-Punjab University 
Calendar, Volume III-Rules 5, 8 and JO-Reservation only for women 
to be appointed as Principal, teacher and hostel superintendent in a 
C women's college-Provisions challenged in writ petition-High Court held 
them to be violative of Articles I 5 and I 6-0n appeal Held, classification 
between male and female permissible for certain posts in accordance with 
established propositions of law on the concept of equality-State empowered 
to take a policy decision and frame rules accordingly-Such reservation 
D also permissible under Article I 5(3)-Court not to sit in appeal against 
the policy decision of the State Government-Provisions not violative 
of Articles I 4 or I 6 as classification is reasonable having nexus with 
the object sought to be achieved, which is protection of young girl 
students. 
E 
Rules S, 8 and IO of the Punjab University Calender, Volume III 
provide a reservation that only women may be appointed as Principal 
of a women's college, teacher or hostel superintendent. A writ petition 
was filed challenging the said provisions. The High Court, by majority, 
held them to be violative of Articles IS and 16 of the Constitution. 
F Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Rules Sand 8 of Punjab University Calender Volume-
111 providing for appointment of lady principal in women's college or 
G a lady teacher therein are not violative of either Article 14 or Article 
16 of the Constitution, because classification is reasonable and it has 
nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The State Government is 
also empowered to make ~uch special provisions under Article 15(3) 
of the Constitution, which is not restricted in any manner by Article 
H t6. 
1034 
.. 
-
.. 
. ~ 
VIJA Y LAXMI v. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY 
1035 
2. In the light of the established propositions oflaw, on the concept A 
of equality enshrined in the Constitution, classification between male 
and female for certain posts are permissible. Rules providing 
appointment of lady principal or teacher are also justified as separate 
colleges or schools for girls are justifiable. The object sought to be 
achieved is a precautionary, preventive and protective measure based B 
on public morals and particularly in view of the young age of the girl 
students to be taught. One may believe in absolute freedom, one may 
not believe in such freedom but in such case when a policy decision is 
taken by the State and rules are framed, accordingly, it cannot be 
termed to be arbitrary or unjustified. Therefore, rules empowering the 
authority to appoint only a lady Principal or a lady teacher or a woman C · 
superintendent cannot be violative of Article 14 or 16, moreso, when 
such reservation by the State is permissible in exercise of powers 
conferred under Article 15(3) of the Constitution. (1038-8-E] 
St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi, (1992] 1 SCC 559, D 
followed. 
3. It is not for the Court to sit in appeal against the policy decision 
taken by State Government. It is for the State to decide whether such 
rule is a preventive or precautionary measure so that young fallible 
students may not be subjected to any sort of exploitation. ( 1039-B, CJ E 
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath, (1974] 1 SCC 19; Air 
India v. Nergesh Meerza and Others, (1981] 4 SCC 335; Western U.P. 
Electric Power & Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1969] 1 SCC 817; 
Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. The State of Bombay and Husseinbhoy Laljee, (1954] 
SCR 930; Union of India v. K.P. Prabhakaran, (1997] 11 sec 638; F 
Government of A.P. v. P.B. Vijay Kumar, (1995] 4 SCC 520; Toguru 
Sudhakar Reddy and Another v. Government of A.P. and Others, (1993] 
Supp. 4SCC 439andMR. Balajiv.StateofMysore, (1963) Supp.1 SCR 
439, relied on. 
Dattatraya Motiram More v. State of Bombay, AIR (1953) Bombay 
311 and B.~. Acharya & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (1988) Lab. J.C. 
1465, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13393 of 
G 
1~ 
H 
1036 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.69 of the Punjab and 
B 
c 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 11694 of 1994. 
Ms. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Seema Nair and Ms. Sudha Pal for the 
Appellant. 
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Ms. Shomila Bakshi for the Respondent 
No. 3. 
K.G. Bhagat, Vineet Bhagat,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.