JUDGMENT 1. - In this peculiar case of gender discrimination, not the women but, men have been excluded on the ground of sex in the matter of employment. 2. The petitioner seeks to declare Rule 5(i) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Special Selection and Special Conditions of Service of Project Directors, Project Officers and other officers in the Women Development Project) Rules, 1984 (for short 1984 Rules') as unconstitutional, with the further prayer to appoint him on the post of Project Director. 3. As per facts averred in the writ petition the petitioner has been serving as LDC in the office of respondent No. 3. An advertisement was published in the month of February, 1998, whereby the applications were invited for filling up the posts of Project Directors at different places. The petitioner submitted application. The petitioner was neither called in interview nor he was informed about the rejection of his application and other candidates who are less qualified were called in interview on May 26, 1998. The petitioner submitted representation, but his representation was not considered and vide order dated September 10, 1998 Smt. Sushila Bohra was appointed as Project Director. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have given more appointment, but the candidature of the petitioner was not considered. It is contended by the petitioner that Rule 5(i) of 1984 Rules is discriminatory and it deserves to be struck down. 4. The respondents submitted return to the writ petition with the averments that the application of petitioner was received after the date of receiving the application, therefore, his application was not considered. It is also contended that according to Rule 5(i) of 1984 Rules only women candidates are entitled for consideration and the petitioner being male candidate is not eligible for consideration. 5. I have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. 6. Rule 5(i) of 1984 Rules provides that: "5(i) The Project being solely meant for the development of women, and all the posts to which these Rules apply shall be held by women only." 7. In the matters of employment Article 15 of the Constitution provides for non-discrimination on the ground of sex. 6. Rule 5(i) of 1984 Rules provides that: "5(i) The Project being solely meant for the development of women, and all the posts to which these Rules apply shall be held by women only." 7. In the matters of employment Article 15 of the Constitution provides for non-discrimination on the ground of sex. Occasionally the provisions of Article 15 clause (3) which provide for special provisions being made for women have been resorted to for prescribing special service conditions for women e.g. that women can not work beyond certain hours. At times women are considered ineligible for jobs because of its peculiar requirements. Some such conditions have been challenged in the Courts. In the case of Dothard v. Robinson (433 US 321) decided in the U.S. in 1977 the job requirements of a prison guard prescribed height and weight measurements. These were challenged as they would exclude women. The U.S. Supreme Court split three ways over this decision. In another U.S. case, the Department of Water and Power prescribed a layer monthly pension fund contribution by female employees. It argued that women live longer than men and hence must contribute more for pension. This was struck down. In India we do not have much litigation in this area. The Kerala High Court struck down a requirement of the Cochin Port Trust that Port clerks should only be men. The argument was that the job was unsafe for women. But genuine protective measures have been, by and large, upheld. Reservation of posts for women under Article 15(3) of the Constitution has been upheld though Article 16 of the Constitution does not provide specifically for such reservation. In the case of Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India ( AIR 1985 SC 1618 ) Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code under which a woman is not punishable as an abettor of the offence of adultery, has been upheld as protected by Article 15(3) of the Constitution. 8. Article I of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:- "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Women are entitled to the enjoyment of all human rights, including those relating to economics development and resources. New vision of equality between men and women is needed. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Women are entitled to the enjoyment of all human rights, including those relating to economics development and resources. New vision of equality between men and women is needed. New vision of equality between men and women is needed. The vision, that rejects the old extreme of one-sex dominance and lockstep gender roles, and also rejects the contemporary extreme of gender based hostility and separate standards for women and men. Equality of opportunity for all people is essential to the construction of just and democratic society. It is no doubt true that 1984 Rules provides for special selection and special conditions of service of Project Directors, Project Officers and other Officers in the Women Development Project, but considering only women for the said posts and excluding men is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution and this can not be protected under Article 15(3) of the Constitution. It cannot be inferred that only women are competent for Women Development Project. Men can also add a lot in this field. Some reservation, undoubtedly can be provided to women in view of Article 15(3) of the Constitution but entire posts of Project Director, Project Officers and other Officers can not be exclusively reserved for women under Rule 5(i) of 1984 Rules. 9. In my opinion Rule 5(i) of 1984 Rules discriminated between men and women on the ground of sex in the matter of employment, it is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution and deserves to be struck down and I accordingly strike it down. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition succeeds and stands allowed. While striking down Rule 5(i) of 1984 Rules. I direct the-respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for giving him appointment on the post of Project Director. There shall be no order as to costs. The respondents shall ensure compliance of this order within sixty days from today.Writ Petition Allowed. *******