The Rajasthan High Court came down heavily on the state government, quashing a condition in the government circular which mandated a woman to be “married” to be appointed as an Anganwadi worker. The court said that depriving a woman of public employment based on her marital status impinges upon a woman’s dignity.
The single-judge bench headed by Justice Dinesh Mehta held that such a condition violates a woman’s right to equality and right to equal opportunity. “In the opinion of this Court, depriving a woman of public employment on the ground of her being unmarried, apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to a woman under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India impinges upon a woman’s dignity.”
The HC further added that denying public employment to a woman on such grounds is a display of a new form of discrimination against women. The court said, “The present case is a classic case wherein, the discrimination encountered by women has been given a new facet. An unmarried woman is discriminated against a married woman. The ostensible reason given to support the said condition that an unmarried woman after marriage would migrate to her matrimonial house does not pass muster the test of reasonableness and prudence.”
The High Court in its final judgment has posed a number of questions to the Rajasthan government. “What if, the candidate marries a boy of the same village or vicinity? What if, a married woman after being engaged as Anganwadi Karykarta moves to another place? What if a woman’s husband decides to live in a woman’s parental home? What if, a woman gets widowed or divorced and decides to move to a new place? And what if, a woman does not wish to marry at all!” the HC said.
The court further added that “the State can neither pre-empt any such situations nor can it prevent a woman from claiming a job simply because she has not tied the nuptial knot.”
The court also underlined that the marital status of a woman to be able to work in Aanganwadi hardly fulfils any objective.
“The apprehension that after marriage, a woman will move onto her matrimonial house is firstly baseless and secondly, it cannot be a reason to justify or protect the offending condition. The condition of a woman to be married being absolutely unconscionable and violative of women’s right to apply and get public employment is liable to be declared arbitrary and unconstitutional,” the bench observed.
Madhu Charan applied for a job at the Aanganwadi Centre in her village in response to an advertisement published on 28 June 2019 based on a circular issued by the Rajasthan government on 9th November 2016. The job description mentioned that an unmarried woman cannot apply for the jobs advertised.
The petitioner is a graduate degree holder in Arts and a Computer Proficiency Certificate (RS-CIT) holder. Yet she was informed that she was ineligible for the post since she was not yet married. She then moved High Court in 2019 and interim relief was granted to her with the directive to the authorities to consider her candidacy.
The bench has, however, allowed the government to take a requisite undertaking from the unmarried woman candidates or amend the circular in order to ensure that if an Aanganwadi woman worker migrates away from her Centre on account of marriage or otherwise, her engagement with the Centre can be terminated.