‘Unmarried girls may move away’: Gujarat High Court slams official’s ‘absurd’ reason for denying govt job to woman

“There is nothing on record to show and substantiate by the respondent that an unmarried village girl cannot be appointed because in near future she might get married and shift to some other village. Such a reason is not only arbitrary, fanciful, frivolous, but violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,” the court’s order read.

While Article 14 guarantees equality before law to all citizens, Article 16 promises equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

Background

• Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the mamlatdar to appoint an administrator-cum-cook in Jhalod, the petitioner and respondent No.3, along with others, submitted their applications.
• The petitioner alleged that despite having secured a higher percentage in graduation, she stood at serial No.6 in the merit list and in the column of graduation, she was merely marked as ‘pass’.
• It was submitted that the candidates above her did not have higher qualifications than the petitioner, including respondent No.3, who stood at serial No.4 in the merit list.
• The petitioner subsequently approached the high court for quashing the appointment order made in favour of respondent No.3. She also sought directions for an appointment order in her favour.
• The counsel for the petitioner argued that she ought to have been at serial No.1 in the merit list, having secured the highest marks in graduation.

• It was further argued that the mamlatdar showed undue favour to respondent No.3 by placing her at serial No.4, despite her having secured lower marks than the petitioner in graduation.
• The counsel for the petitioner added that the reason assigned for other candidates, who were placed at serial numbers 1 and 2 in the merit list, was absurd and unsustainable, and was contrary to the advertisement.
• Assistant government pleader, appearing for the respondent-state, submitted that the petitioner had not submitted her graduation certificate and other educational details in support of her application, leaving no option to the authority but to choose a more meritorious person than the petitioner.

Court’s observations

• It is a clear case of favouritism in public employment by officials of the state.
• It could have come down heavily upon the then mamlatdar and sought his explanation as to how he appointed respondent No.3, but it is pointed out that he retired from service long ago.
• The merit list and remark column contain some absurd reasons noted down by the mamlatdar for not appointing the candidates above respondent No. 3, who are undisputedly higher in merit.
• As far as the entitlement of the petitioner to be appointed to the post of administrator-cum-cook is concerned, the respondents have disputed that at the time of submitting her application, she had not submitted her certificate of educational qualification.
• Such a stand taken by the respondents appears to be incorrect, as in the form itself, in serial No.4 against educational qualification, it is specifically written that the candidate will have to attach a true copy of the certificate and percentage.
• The advocate for respondent No. 3 has stated that, prima facie, the degree obtained by the petitioner from the concerned university is fake as the university’s name is not as reflected in the certificate produced on record.

• There is some substance in the petitioner’s arguments as regards the submission of degree certificate at the time of submitting the application, but the respondents’ stance cannot be overlooked as the petitioner’s degree certificate needs to be verified from the concerned university.
• In view of the aforesaid facts, at this stage, this court would not like to issue any direction for the petitioner’s appointment.
• The respondent authority will have to cross-verify and confirm the degree certificate of the petitioner from the concerned university.
• If such a certificate is found to be genuine, then the petitioner, having secured 68 per cent marks and would stand first in the merit list, requires to be appointed to the post of administrator-cum-cook.
• If the degree certificate is found to be fake, it goes without saying that the petitioner cannot be offered the appointment.
• In such circumstances, the respondent authority is directed to call upon the candidate at serial No. 2 in the merit list and she will be treated as more meritorious than the petitioner as well as respondent No.3, as the case may be.