138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

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