Unmarried Woman Can't Be Denied Public Employment Over Fear That She May Relocate After Marriage: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that denying public employment to an unmarried woman on the ground that she may marry and relocate is arbitrary and unconstitutional, observing that such reasoning reflects clear favouritism and violates equality principles.

Coming down heavily on the appointing authority, Justice Maulik J. Shelat observed, “This is a classic example of outright favouritism by the then Mamlatdar… There is nothing on record to show and substantiate… 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 was hearing a writ petition filed by Sangada Hansaben Malabhai challenging the appointment of another candidate as Administrator-cum-Cook in Jhalod, Dahod district, pursuant to a recruitment process conducted by the Mamlatdar.

Appearing for the petitioner advocate Japan V. Dave submitted that the petitioner had secured 68% marks in graduation, which was higher than the person appointed to the role (respondent No. 3 – Shivani J. Barot), who had secured only 48.94%. Despite this, respondent No. 3 was placed higher in the merit list and appointed. It was also pointed out that the merit list inaccurately reflected Ms. Barot as having secured higher marks than declared in her application.

Dave submitted that despite being more meritorious, the petitioner was denied appointment arbitrarily, while Barot was given undue favour. He argued that all educational certificates had been submitted and were later obtained under the Right to Information Act, which demonstrated that the petitioner was more qualified.

Opposing the petition, Assistant Government Pleader Siddharth Rami submitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner had not submitted her graduation certificate, and therefore the authority had selected another candidate. He submitted that the authority could verify the certificate if directed by the Court.

Counsel for Shivani J. Barot, advocate Prithviraj Jadeja argued that the petitioner had not produced valid proof of qualification and that the degree certificate appeared suspicious. It was also submitted that respondent No. 3 had been working in the post for over eight years and her appointment should not be disturbed.

After examining the record, the Court found that several candidates more meritorious than respondent no. 3 were rejected on untenable and discriminatory grounds. It noted that reasons such as rejecting unmarried candidates on the assumption that they may marry and relocate were wholly arbitrary and unconstitutional.

At the same time, the Court observed that since questions were raised about the authenticity of the petitioner's degree certificate, its genuineness required verification before granting appointment.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the appointment of respondent no. 3, and directed the authorities to verify the petitioner's degree certificate from the concerned university. It held that if the certificate was found genuine, the petitioner must be appointed, and if found fake, the candidate placed at serial No. 2 in the merit list should be appointed instead. The Court further directed that this exercise be completed within one month and instructed the State to implement safeguards to prevent such malpractices in public employment in future.

The plea was partly allowed.

Case Title: Sangada Hansaben Malabhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 8600 of 2018

Appearance: Mr. Japan V. Dave for the Petitioner; Mr. Siddharth Rami, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr. Prithviraj Jadeja with Ms. Shivani J. Barot for Respondent No. 3.

Click Here To Read/Download Order