RAIPUR: Rejecting an announcement by the Chhattisgarh government, the high court on Thursday said providing 100 percent female reserve was “unconstitutional”.
A division bench of Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas it overturned provisions in a law drafted by the Chhattisgarh government, which specified that only female candidates can be recruited directly to the posts of protesters, professors and principals in government nursing schools.
The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission had released the announcement for Assistant Professors (Nurses) and Protesters posts for various subjects on 8 December 2021 and cited this law to seek applications from women only.
Abhay Kumar Kispotta, Dr. Ajay Tripathi, Alyus Xalxo and others have taken the high court against this. their advice, Nelson Cream AND Ghanshyam Kashyapclaimed to have challenged the legality and constitutional validity of Note-2 of the Medical Education Service Recruitment Rules (Gazetted), 2013.
The lawyers argued that clause 5 of the advertisement (which made it reserved for women) violates articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution and argued that the applicants possess all the required educational qualifications prescribed in the advertisement, but they cannot apply due to this clause.
Under the 2013 Act, the position of demonstrator is to be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from the post of Nurse/Sister Nurse/Assistant Superintendent of Nursing. It says 75% of assistant professor posts are filled through direct recruitment and 25% through promotion from the post of demonstrator. Similarly, full professor and associate professor posts are 100% by promotion to researcher and associate professor. So is the post of dean from the post of professor, which equates to 100 percent reserve in public service for women in nursing colleges.
They stressed that there is no restriction on male applicants applying for undergraduate, postgraduate or postgraduate nursing courses, so the 100% reservation in favor of female applicants is “illegal, irrational, arbitrary and violates the Constitution”.
After hearing both sides, the HC bench reversed footnote 5 and the announcement.
A division bench of Chief Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas it overturned provisions in a law drafted by the Chhattisgarh government, which specified that only female candidates can be recruited directly to the posts of protesters, professors and principals in government nursing schools.
The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission had released the announcement for Assistant Professors (Nurses) and Protesters posts for various subjects on 8 December 2021 and cited this law to seek applications from women only.
Abhay Kumar Kispotta, Dr. Ajay Tripathi, Alyus Xalxo and others have taken the high court against this. their advice, Nelson Cream AND Ghanshyam Kashyapclaimed to have challenged the legality and constitutional validity of Note-2 of the Medical Education Service Recruitment Rules (Gazetted), 2013.
The lawyers argued that clause 5 of the advertisement (which made it reserved for women) violates articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution and argued that the applicants possess all the required educational qualifications prescribed in the advertisement, but they cannot apply due to this clause.
Under the 2013 Act, the position of demonstrator is to be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion from the post of Nurse/Sister Nurse/Assistant Superintendent of Nursing. It says 75% of assistant professor posts are filled through direct recruitment and 25% through promotion from the post of demonstrator. Similarly, full professor and associate professor posts are 100% by promotion to researcher and associate professor. So is the post of dean from the post of professor, which equates to 100 percent reserve in public service for women in nursing colleges.
They stressed that there is no restriction on male applicants applying for undergraduate, postgraduate or postgraduate nursing courses, so the 100% reservation in favor of female applicants is “illegal, irrational, arbitrary and violates the Constitution”.
After hearing both sides, the HC bench reversed footnote 5 and the announcement.
