In a significant ruling reinforcing gender equality in public employment, the Gujarat High Court has held that denying a government job to an unmarried woman on the assumption that she may marry and relocate in the future is unconstitutional.
Calling the case a “classic example of outright favoritism,” the Court set aside the appointment of a candidate selected for the post of Administrator-cum-Cook in Dahod district and ordered authorities to redo the process strictly on merit, subject to verification of the petitioner’s academic credentials.
Justice Maulik J. Shelat delivered the verdict on February 16, while partly allowing a writ petition filed by Sangada Hansaben Malabhai. She had challenged the appointment made by the Mamlatdar of Taluka Jhalod, alleging that despite scoring significantly higher marks, she was overlooked in favour of a less qualified candidate.
The controversy traces back to a recruitment drive initiated by the Mamlatdar, Jhalod, for the post of Administrator-cum-Cook. Several candidates applied in response to the advertisement, including the petitioner and respondent No. 3.
Malabhai had secured 68% in her graduation. In contrast, respondent No. 3 had scored 48.94% in her final-year examination, and there were questions regarding her graduate status at the time of application. Despite this, the merit list prepared by the Mamlatdar ranked respondent No. 3 above the petitioner, ultimately leading to her appointment.
Alleging manipulation of the merit list, Malabhai contended that she had been unfairly denied the job despite being more meritorious. She relied on documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to show that her educational certificates had indeed been submitted and were part of the official record.
Terming the appointment arbitrary and illegal, she approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the selection and her own appointment based strictly on merit.
Arguments Before The Court
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Japan V. Dave argued that the selection process had been deliberately skewed to favour respondent No. 3. He pointed out that the petitioner’s academic documents, including her graduation certificate, were available in the Mamlatdar’s office and had been accessed through RTI.
He maintained that preferring a less qualified candidate without valid reasons amounted to a violation of constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16.
On the other hand, Assistant Government Pleader Siddharth Rami argued that the petitioner had failed to provide her graduation certificate during the recruitment process. In the absence of proof of qualification, the appointing authority had selected another candidate.
The State, however, submitted that if the Court deemed fit, the petitioner’s certificate could be verified with the concerned university. It was also pointed out that the Mamlatdar responsible for the selection had since retired, limiting the State’s ability to explain the circumstances in detail.
Counsel for respondent No. 3 raised doubts over the authenticity of the petitioner’s degree certificate, suggesting it might be fake. It was argued that verification attempts had not yielded confirmation and that respondent No. 3 had already served in the post for over eight years. Disturbing the appointment at this stage, the counsel submitted, would be unjustified.
Court Flags ‘Arbitrary’ Reasoning
After reviewing the records, the High Court found serious irregularities in the recruitment process. It observed that respondent No. 3 had been placed at serial number four in the merit list yet was appointed over more qualified candidates.
The Court paid particular attention to the remarks column of the merit list, where it found that better-qualified candidates were rejected on flimsy grounds. Among the most striking reasons recorded was that an unmarried village woman might get married in the future and move away.
The Court categorically rejected this reasoning, stating that there was no legal basis to assume that an unmarried woman could not be appointed merely because she might marry and relocate. Such a justification, it said, was arbitrary, fanciful and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Justice Shelat observed that the reasoning clearly reflected favoritism and manipulation aimed at benefiting a particular candidate. While noting that the Mamlatdar’s conduct could have warranted prosecution, the Court refrained from initiating such action since the officer had already retired.
The Court also found that the petitioner’s educational certificates bore the official seal of the Mamlatdar’s office and had been obtained through RTI, undermining the State’s claim that no documents were submitted.
What The Court Ordered
The High Court quashed the April 21, 2018 appointment order issued in favour of respondent No. 3. However, instead of granting immediate appointment to the petitioner, the Court directed authorities to verify her graduation certificate from the concerned university.
If the certificate is found genuine, the petitioner—having secured 68% and ranking first on merit—must be appointed to the post. If the certificate is found to be fake, the candidate placed at serial number two in the merit list should be considered for appointment.
The Court directed that this entire exercise be completed within one month.
Broader Directions To The State
Before concluding the matter, the Court issued wider directions to the State Government to strengthen transparency in recruitment processes and to introduce safeguards against similar irregularities in the future.
Emphasising the need to preserve the integrity of public employment, the Court underlined that merit must remain the sole guiding principle in government appointments.
With these observations and directions, the writ petition was partly allowed, sending a strong message that assumptions rooted in gender bias have no place in public service recruitment.
Also Read: Gujarat High Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Citations In Tax Orders https://www.vibesofindia.com/gujarat-high-court-flags-ai-generated-fake-citations-in-tax-orders/
