Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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