R. C. MANKAD, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners who are Probation Officers in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700 have filed this petition claiming promotion to the higher post carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 mainly on the ground that the officers junior to them are promoted to the higher post ( 2 ) IT appears that in the Directorate of Social Defence there is a common cadre of officers in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700 which cadre consists of Probation Officers under the Probation of Offenders Act and other posts. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Probation Officer on 1/02/1964 and petitioner No. 2/01/1963 Both the petitioners were later on confirmed in the said posts. There is another common cadre in the Directorate of Social Defence carrying pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 to which promotion is made from the lower common cadre in the pay-scale of Rs. 425-700. There are about 10 posts carrying the pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 and they have been pooled together for the purpose of recruitment. These posts are filled in by direct selection and promotion as per the Government Notification No. EST/1064/33492 (12)-Chh dated 9/02/1970 The Directorate of Social Defence is concerned with social security of men and women and it runs various institutions such as after care hostels home for crippled children home for mentally deficient children District Shelters and Reception Centres. Reception centres have been established under the programme of social and moral hygiene and after care services Women Who are destitutes deserted unmarried mothers victimised ill-treated rejected and also those who are in moral danger are admitted to these institutions. These centres are also declared as Protective Homes under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956 The services which are rendered to these women include education vocational training treatment and rehabilitation for which no charges are recovered. It is stated that there are seven reception centres in Palanpur Palitana Surendranagar. Godhra Bharuch Cambay and Vansda where only lady officers are required to be appointed as Lady Superintendents as heads of the institutions. ( 3 ) THERE were common recruitment rules for Superintendents/ Lady Superintendents for District Shelters State Home and Reception Centres. These rules it appears were flamed under Government Resolution dated 3/10/1959 Thereafter by Government Resolution dated 9/02/1970 separate Recruitment Rules were framed for Superintendents of District Shelters. ( 3 ) THERE were common recruitment rules for Superintendents/ Lady Superintendents for District Shelters State Home and Reception Centres. These rules it appears were flamed under Government Resolution dated 3/10/1959 Thereafter by Government Resolution dated 9/02/1970 separate Recruitment Rules were framed for Superintendents of District Shelters. So far as recruitment of Lady Superintendents for Reception Homes was concerned the aforesaid common Recruitment Rules continued to apply. The said common Recruitment Rules provide for two sources of recruitment namely (i) by nomination; and (ii) by promotion of suitable members of Social Defence Department. The grievance of the petitioners is that Lady Officers who were junior to them in the common cadre were promoted to the higher post of Lady Superintendents while they continued to be in the same post carrying lower pay-scale. Their further grievance is that even some of the male officers who were junior to them were given promotion to higher post ignoring their rights: The contention of the petitioners is that they should be considered to be eligible for appointment to the post of Lady Superintendent and promotions given to the Lady Officers who were Junior to them to such posts should be quashed and set aside. It was further contended that in any case they should be promoted or deemed to have been promoted from the date their juniors were promoted to the higher posts ( 4 ) IT is clear from the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State that there are certain posts which are meant only for Lady Officers. The institutions where destitute women unmarried mothers etc. are kept are headed by Lady Superintendent. Since the post is of Lady Superintendent only Lady Officers are considered eligible for such posts. The petitioners however contend that they should not be discriminated only on the ground of sex. They should also be considered eligible for promotion to such post. This claim made by the petitioners cannot be accepted. ( 5 ) THE institutions which are headed by Lady Superintendents are exclusively for women and it is for the Government to decide as a matter of policy whether or not such institutions should be headed by only lady officers. They should also be considered eligible for promotion to such post. This claim made by the petitioners cannot be accepted. ( 5 ) THE institutions which are headed by Lady Superintendents are exclusively for women and it is for the Government to decide as a matter of policy whether or not such institutions should be headed by only lady officers. Merely because at some stage there is a common cadre in which the officers of both the sexes are appointed does not mean that all posts in the higher cadre must also be filled in by persons belonging to both the sexes. Having regard to the nature of duties to be performed it is open to the State Government to decide that the institutions which are exclusively meant for women should be headed by only women or lady officers. The Government cannot be compelled to appoint male officers to head such institutions if it does not consider it advisable to do so. If a special provision is made for women the petitioners cannot make grievance that they have been discriminated against. Incidentally it may be pointed out that Art. 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion race caste sex or place of birth. Clause (3) of the said Article however provides: Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. I therefore do not find any substance in the petitioners contention that they should be considered to be eligible for promotion to the post of Lady Superintendent. ( 6 ) SO far as the petitioners claim for promotion to the higher post is concerned it is stated in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State and the Director of Social Defence that the petitioners have not been promoted to the higher post as the Departmental Selection Committee (D. S. C. for short) did not find them fit for such promotion. There is no reason to disbelieve this statement made in the affidavit of the Director of Social Defence. It appears that so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned he was dismissed from service by an order dated 31/08/1977 He was however reinstated in service on 16/10/1979 It appears that some persons who were junior to petitioner No. 1 were promoted between the date of his dismissal from service and his reinstatement in service. It appears that so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned he was dismissed from service by an order dated 31/08/1977 He was however reinstated in service on 16/10/1979 It appears that some persons who were junior to petitioner No. 1 were promoted between the date of his dismissal from service and his reinstatement in service. It further appears that by an order dated 17/03/1980 punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect was imposed on petitioner No. 1. Penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect was gain imposed on petitioner No. 1 by an order dated Augu 5/08/1980 However as already pointed out above apart from the above punishments petitioner No. 1 was not found fit for promotion by the D. S. C. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned it is stated that he became due for consideration for promotion in January 1979. He was however not found fit for promotion by the D. S. C. consisting of Director Deputy Director and Assistant Director of Social Defence. Petitioner No. 2s case was again considered for promotion in July 1979 but at that time also the D. S. C. of which the Joint Secretary to Government Department of Social Welfare was one of the members did not find petitioner No. 2 fit for promotion to the higher cadre. It would thus appear that promotions have been denied to the petitioners on merits. There is no allegation that the respondents have acted mala fide in denying promotions to the petitioners. I therefore do not see any merit in the petitioners contention that they should have been promoted to the higher post from the date their juniors were promoted. Since I do not find merit in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners the petition deserves to be rejected. ( 7 ) IN the result this petition fails and is rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. Petition rejected: Rule discharged. .