"Inappropriate": Punjab & Haryana High Court Refrains From Referring To Female Teacher As 'Mistress', Cites SC Directives On Addressing Females

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently refrained from referring to a female teacher as "mistress", a terminology which the Punjab Government uses for the position.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma said,

"Petitioner Neetu Sharma has approached this court with a grievance that she had applied for the post of Punjabi Language Mistress (the word mistress is although inappropriate but is a term being used by the State Government and therefore this Court would not delete it. however. would refer to it as Teacher' hereinafter keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court with regard to use of appropriate terminology while addressing the female gender)."

It is worthwhile to mention that last year Supreme Court had released the 'Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes'.The handbook was prepared by a committee headed by Calcutta High Court judge Moushumi Bhattacharya. It not only identified language that promotes gender stereotypes and offered suitable alternatives, but also flagged common but incorrect reasoning patterns based on gender stereotypes, particularly those about women; and highlighted binding decisions of the Supreme Court that has rejected these stereotypes.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud wrote in the foreword : “Language is critical to the life of the law. Words are the vehicle through which the values of the law are communicated. Words transmit the ultimate intention of the lawmaker or the judge to the nation. However, the language a judge uses reflects not only their interpretation of the law, but their perception of society as well. Where the language of judicial discourse reflects antiquated or incorrect ideas about women, it inhibits the transformative project of the law and the Constitution of India, which seek to secure equal rights to all persons, irrespective of gender.”

The Court was hearing a batch of plea seeking quashing of appointment of certain teachers and praying for her appointment instead on the ground that she possesses higher merit than the said respondents, although they were lower in merit while excluding the petitioner.

One of the petitioners, Neetu Sharma alleged that, the appointment offered to six teachers were wrongful. They could not have been appointed over and above the persons higher in merit by treating them in a different category to which they did not belong.

According to the advertisement published by the State government 12 posts were reserved under "Freedom Fighter category" for Punjabi Language Teachers. 

As per the earlier circular issued by the concerned department, the selection for filling up the freedom fighter category posts would be conducted by first taking into consideration the instructions issued 1961. The wards of Freedom Fighter category, who are son/ daughter, paternal grand-son/ grand-daughter and maternal grand-son/ grand-daughter of Freedom righters would be considered for appointment with 2% reservation in Class-1 and Class-2 and 1% reservation in Class-3 and Class-4 services of the State Government.

Later on, vide another circular issued in 2000, it was uniformly resolved that only 1% posts would be reserved for all class posts. As per circular issued in 2011, the sons and daughters of the Freedom Fighters will be given first preference/ priority before paternal grand-son/ grand-daughter and maternal grand-son/granddaughter. It was further provided that in case of absence of sons/ daughters, this facility will be given to paternal grand-sons/ grand-daughters and maternal grand-sons/ grand- daughters.

The Court noted that Sharma in her application form has mentioned herself to be in the category of Freedom fighter Grandchildren. While from perusal of the forms of the respondents, it noted that they all have applied as freedom fighter's son/ daughter. However, the documents which have been filed along with the application forms, all of them have filed certificate to be the grandsons/ granddaughters of the freedom fighter.

Sharma argued that 19 candidates were present during counselling and by giving preference to the respondents, the posts were filled even though higher meritorious candidates were available including the petitioner, and therefore, she prays for quashing of their appointment and also further prays that she should be given appointment on the said post

The Court referred to High Court's decision in Jaspreet Kaur vs State of Punjab and others [2010 (3) SCT 416], wherein it took into consideration the earlier circulars on freedom fighters category and held that the earlier circular does not anywhere provide that the son's son and son's daughter shall be given preference over daughter's son and daughter's daughter, and therefore, "the merit was to be considered inter-se amongst the candidates and accordingly it allowed the writ petition filed by the daughter's daughter of a freedom fighter to be offered appointment as she was higher in merit."

Considering the submission, Justice Sharma opined that the,"The approach adopted by the State Government while conducting the selection appears to be very casual."

"The documents/ certificates relating to the petitioner and respondents were with the State Government that they are the children/ grand children of the Freedom Fighters. Still the Selection Committee, which was admittedly a team formed by the respondent-State, proceeded to give preferential treatment to them resulting in depriving petitioner Neetu Sharma from her rightful claim for appointment," the Court added.

Consequently the Court allowed her plea, stating that "(it) deserves to be allowed to the extent of directing the respondent-State to consider her case for appointment from the date other persons were so appointed treating her higher in merit to the persons, who were appointed in the year 2012."

However, the Court clarified that the persons who were appointed, though lower in merit, are allowed to continue and their appointments are saved.

The bench said that the respondents (teachers appointed lower in merit), have continued for ten years and the proposed action is highly belated i.e. after nine years, therefore they will be allowed to continue but "their seniority would fall below petitioner Neetu Sharma, who is higher in merit to them."

It further added that, "Petitioner Neetu Sharma would be entitled to all consequential benefits viz. seniority, confirmation from the date others were confirmed and also her actual pay fixation. However, the arrears shall be paid notionally. Neetu Sharma petitioner would be entitled for actual benefits from the date of passing of this order after fixation of her salary."

In the light of the above, the plea was disposed of.

Chanchal K. Singla, Advocate and Aditya Partap, Advocates for the petitioner in CWP No. 5854 of 2014.

D. S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate assisted by  Gaurav Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 10879 of 2023.

Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No. 24399 of 2023 and for respondent no.8 in CWP No. 5854 of 2014.

Charanpreet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

G. S. Bal, Senior Advocate assisted by

J. S. Randhawa and Mr. A. D. S. Bal, Advocates, for respondent nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 in CWP No. 5854 of 2014.

Deepika Bagri, Advocate for  Anupam Singla, Advocate, for respondent no. 3 in CWP No. 10879 of 2023.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 54

Title: Neetu Sharma v. State of Punjab and others

Click here to read/download the order