Forest Guard Exam| 'Chest Measurement Criterion For Women Is Arbitrary, Outrageous & Affront To A Woman’s Dignity': Rajasthan HC

In a significant verdict, the Rajasthan High Court has termed the recruitment eligibility criteria for the Forest Guard post, wherein women aspirants are expected to undergo chest measurement test, as 'arbitrary', 'outrageous' and an 'affront to the dignity of a woman'.

Stating that the size of a woman’s chest is irrelevant for the purposes of determining her strength, the bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta stressed that not only does the criterion of chest measurement appear to be "scientifically unfounded", but also "immodest".

"This Court cannot, but refrain from observing that the respondents’ act of setting up chest measurement to be a criterion, particularly for female candidates, is absolutely arbitrary, rather outrageous to say the least. It is a clear dent on a lady’s dignity and right of privacy guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court said.

"The size of the chest and its expansion in the case of a female candidate may not necessarily be a pointer of physical fitness and litmus test of lungs’ capacity. Even if it be so, such measurement impinges upon or intrudes on the privacy of a female. Apart from being irrational, prescribing such criterion disrupts the dignity, bodily autonomy and mental integrity of a woman," the Court further added.

Being "perturbed" by the "lack of sensitivity" exhibited by the administrative authorities while formulating the hiring policy/Rules, the Court directed that its order be sent to the Chief Secretary; Secretary of the Forest Department and the Secretary of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan to have a relook at such criterion or relevant Rule.

The Court also suggested that the government departments may solicit experts’ opinions to explore the possibility of alternative means to determine the desired level of lung capacity so as to ensure that the "unwarranted humiliation" of women candidates is avoided.

The Court made these noteworthy observations while dealing with a writ plea filed by 3 candidates (who sat for the Forest Guard Exam) who were rejected on the parameters set by the respondents in relation to chest measurement, though they cleared the Physical Efficiency/Standard Test.

The Court dismissed their plea on the grounds that they all failed to meet the parameters set by the respondents. The Court said that since the recruitment was over and all the candidates including the petitioners herein had subjected themselves to such test, hence, it would not disturb the recruitment which has taken place.

However, the bench, in strong terms, expressed its "shock" regarding the parameters laid down by the respondents for ascertaining the physical standards of women candidates.

In its order, the Court opined that some deliberation was necessary regarding the parameters set by the recruiting body. The Court said that the qualifying criteria were based on incorrect assumptions that having a minimum chest girth would ensure the physical fitness of a woman.

"The practice adopted, apart from lacking any scientific validity, is humiliating, derogatory and an affront to a woman’s dignity. Considering that a candidate is otherwise required to clear Physical Efficiency Test, in which she has to jump 1.35 meters (Standing Broad Jump) and throw shot put (4 kg) to a distance of 4.5 meters, the condition of minimum chest circumference looks irrational and unwarranted," the Court remarked.

Furthermore, the Court observed that measuring expansion to determine lung capacity was understandable, however, prescribing a ‘minimum chest circumference’ was absolutely "ludicrous" on the part of the Forest Department of the State Government.

The Court noted that for such purpose, there are modern tests available and if the respondents do not wish to resort to such methods, they can well ask the candidates to run for a particular distance, as is being done by the State in Police Constable recruitments.

"One does not see any rhyme or reason behind the criterion in question, particularly for female candidates," the Court added as it parted with the order.

Case title - Vandana Kanwar and others vs. State Of Rajasthan and others [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6847/2023]

Click Here To Read/Download Order