Order
1. These appeals by the Union of India relate to appointment on the posts of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerks in the four metropolitan cities of Madras, Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. In April 1978 the Railway Administration took a decision that both the upper and lower class reservation counters in the Reservation Offices in the metropolitan cities of Madras, Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi would have to be manned only by women. By circular dated 30-6-1978, it was decided that the Reservation Offices in the said metropolitan cities should constitute seniority unit separate from the rest of the Enquiry and Reservation cadre in the Railways. By the impugned judgment, the Madras High Court has quashed the said circular dated 30-6-1978 on the view that it was violative of provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution. The High Court has rejected the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that it was protected by Article 15(3) of the Constitution. The High Court has held that Article 15(3) cannot be read as a proviso or an exception qualifying or restricting the guarantee under Articles 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has invited our attention to the recent decision of this Court in Govt. of A.P v. P.B Vijayakumar (1995) 4 SCC 520, (1995) 30 ATC 576. In that case the question regarding validity of Rule 22-A(2) of the A.P State Subordinate Service Rules came up for consideration. The said provision provided for reservation to the extent of 30 per cent for women in the matter of direct recruitment to the posts governed by the said rules. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had declared the said rule to be invalid on the view that Article 15(3) was not applicable and the rule was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The said view of the High Court has been reversed by this Court. It has been held that Article 15 deals with every kind of State action in relation to the citizens of this country and that every sphere of activity of the State is controlled by Article 15(1) and, therefore, there was no reason to exclude from the ambit of Article 15(1) employment under the State. Since Articles 15(1) and 15(3) go together, the protection of Article 15(3) would be applicable to employment under the State falling under Articles 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution. In view of the above-referred judgment of this Court in Govt. of A.P v. P.B Vijayakumar (1995) 4 SCC 520, (1995) 30 ATC 576 the impugned judgment of the High Court holding that Article 15(3) has no application in matters relating to employment under the State falling under Articles 16(1) and (2) cannot be upheld and has to be set aside.
3. During the pendency of these appeals, this Court had passed an interim order staying the impugned judgment of the High Court subject to the condition that any appointment made during the pendency of the appeals will be subject to the result of these appeals. Since we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be upheld, it is directed that the appointments that have been made on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court would remain unaffected. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.