"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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

Similar News