MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Requirement For Female Candidates To Be Married in Aanganwadi Recruitment - Arbitrary and Discriminatory: RAJ HC

04 September 2024 11:30 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, Justice DINESH MEHTA of the High Court ruled that the requirement for female candidates to be married to be eligible for the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta is “arbitrary and discriminatory.” The ruling specifically addressed conditions laid out in a government circular dated 09.11.2016 and an advertisement dated 28.06.2019.

The petitioner had challenged the validity of the conditions, stating they were inherently discriminatory against unmarried women. The court, after a comprehensive examination of the arguments and relevant Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, held that the condition was violative of fundamental rights.

The judgment read, “The condition is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” This observation was a part of the critical Paragraphs 7-8 and 14-20, where the court delved deep into the legality and ethics behind the condition.

Justice DINESH MEHTA questioned the rationale behind requiring candidates to be married, finding it lacking in reasonableness. In Paragraphs 10 and 17-18, the court scrutinized various hypothetical situations, challenging the logic behind the discriminatory policy.

As a result of the decision, the court has directed the State to consider amending the Circular, and the petitioner’s application is to be processed within the next four weeks. This judgment could potentially set a precedent for other discriminatory policies related to public employment, thereby creating a more equitable working environment for all.

The court also referred to the case of Madhu Kishwar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 5 SCC 125 to bolster its arguments.

Date of Decision: 04/09/2023

Miss Madhu vs State Of Rajasthan

Latest Legal News