Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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