'Do You Expect Her To Deliver Child In GPSC Office?' Gujarat High Court Raps PSC For Rejecting Pregnant Candidate's Plea To Postpone Interview

In a stern rebuke to the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC), the Gujarat High Court criticized the commission for its rigid adherence to rules without considering extraordinary circumstances of the lady petitioner.The court's admonition came during the hearing on Friday, in light of the GPSC's refusal to accommodate a pregnant woman's request for an alternative interview date during her final stage of pregnancy, where the Court remarked, “You are not dealing with things, you are dealing with human beings.”Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, observed, “If somebody says there was a family emergency, my grand uncle was sick and i could not come, fine you have to throw that application to the dustbin. But the same is not the case with a pregnant lady, who says that i am 9 months pregnant, my delivery date is in the first of january, please consider my case. You said, 'no, it cannot be considered!' So what do you expect? She delivers her child in the office of GPSC?” The court in the previous hearing had instructed the GPSC to withhold the result announcement until the resolution of this petition, with further deliberations scheduled for Friday (12.01.2024). During the hearing on Friday, the respondent's counsel cited the rules set forth for candidates undergoing interviews conducted by GPSC to which Justice Kariel replied by stating, “This Mr. Pathak contemplates the normal scenario. We're looking at an extraordinary scenario. These are not unassailable or so mandatory that there cannot be any leeway. Normal circumstances - someone has been given time, he has to report. Some situations, if there is a flood, what do you expect? Then he will say provide me a chopper, I'll come down. Then the onus will be on you.”“Can you dispute that suppose if there was no rain, but there is an orange alert, she's a lady candidate. Her parents say that 'you cannot go out today. We are not sure if you will be able to come back or not' - What is wrong in that? It is a human circumstance. Why would you not take that into..?” The counsel countered, stating, “We are living in a digital age and the news would be reflected days ago.”In response, Justice Kariel emphasized, “You're talking about human beings, mister. You're not talking about inanimate things. If somebody is really hard pressed, then he should get an opportunity - floodgates or no floodgates!”“She has come well within time - immediately. Now after this order if someone comes and says please keep me, he will not receive the same consideration because now the gates have closed. The Courts will be with the person who is vigilant, not somebody who is indolent. That's the only thing,” Justice Kariel added.Advancing the discussion, the counsel emphasized the clarity of the rules, prompting Justice Kariel to assert, "Rules are for dealing with people, rules are not dealing with things. The counsel asserted, “The recruitment procedure has come to an end.” Justice Kariel responded, “This is not something where you cannot play in the joints. you always have that discretion and you always have that kind of leeway with you. There will be somebody who will be retiring, there will be somebody who has moved to some other place - there will be so many places where she can be accommodated.” The Counsel countered by pointing out that 22 other candidates from the same district had timely reported their presence, and therefore, due to their vigilance in approaching the relevant authorities promptly, the petitioner should not be granted additional time.However, Justice Kariel dismissed this argument, stating, “Nothing like that, mister. See, it's a question of convenience. She has a reasonable cause. We will not go into the 'whether it actually rained, or whether it (was a) flood.' She is saying that there was a reasonable circumstance - I could not reach that particular point. She's so vigilant that she also sent an email saying that, 'I cannot come, please consider my case.'”Justice Kariel further questioned, “Please answer me, your officers are dealing with people, what is the adversarial part? This is not somebody's ancestral property that he is so concerned about; this is about absolute public employment. There is all reasonability that what she is saying is right.”“She's not somebody who has run away with the government's money that your officers should be so extraordinarily concerned about. And we know the concerns of the officers. You want me to spell it out? These concerns are changing from circumstance to circumstance. It's not that the concerns for the government's rules are so imbibed that at any point of time at every stage, with every person, that remains,” Justice Kariel added.Justice Karel inquired of the counsel, “What is the big deal here? Is she someone who has defaulted with the government's money that you are having this adversarial attitude? I don't understand this. Why is your officer so concerned that it cannot be done? What is your point? Rules are dealing with normal...

'Do You Expect Her To Deliver Child In GPSC Office?' Gujarat High Court Raps PSC For Rejecting Pregnant Candidate's Plea To Postpone Interview

Bhavya Singh

Tags