Unmarried Women Cannot Be Denied Public Employment On Presumption Of Marriage And Relocation: Gujarat High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat has set aside the appointment of a candidate to the post of Administrator-cum-Cook and directed authorities to appoint the petitioner, subject to verification of her educational certificate, holding that the selection process was affected by favouritism and arbitrary exclusion. The case concerned denial of public employment to an unmarried woman despite higher merit, on the assumption that she might marry and relocate. The Court described the Mamlatdar’s approach as a “classic example of outright favouritism” and held that such reasoning, unsupported by record, was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16.
The writ petition arose from a recruitment process initiated by the Mamlatdar, Taluka Jhalod, District Dahod, for appointment to the post of Administrator-cum-Cook. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 applied pursuant to the advertisement. In the merit list prepared by the authority, respondent No. 3 was placed at serial No. 4, while the petitioner was placed at serial No. 6, though the petitioner claimed to have secured 68% in graduation. The petitioner contended that despite higher marks, she was shown merely as “pass” in the graduation column and denied appointment, whereas respondent No. 3, who allegedly secured lower marks, was appointed.
The petitioner challenged the appointment order dated 21.04.2018, seeking its quashing and a direction for her appointment. The State contended that the petitioner had not submitted her graduation certificate at the relevant time. Respondent No. 3 argued that the petitioner’s degree certificate from Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Agra appeared to be fake due to discrepancy in the university’s name. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate writs against the impugned appointment.
At the outset, the Court observed, “this is a classic example of outright favouritism shown by the then Mamlatdar of Taluka Jhalod, District Dahod (respondent No.2), whereby he appointed respondent No. 3 as Administrator-cum-Cook, despite her being at serial No. 4 in the merit list.”
After examining the merit list and remarks, the Court recorded, “This Court has minutely gone through the merit list and remark column, wherein some absurd reasons are noted down by respondent No. 2, thereby not appointed the candidates above the respondent No. 3, who undisputedly higher in merit.”
Regarding the reason assigned against unmarried candidates, the Court stated, “There is nothing on record to show and substantiate by the respondent that an unmarried village girl cannot be appointed because in near future she might get married and shift to some other village.” It further observed, “Such a reason is not only arbitrary, fanciful, frivolous, but violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
On the conduct of the authority, the Court recorded, “This would have happened because respondent No. 2 was inclined to appoint respondent No. 3, who was otherwise placed at serial No. 4 in the merit list.”
While dealing with the petitioner’s entitlement, the Court noted, “There is some substance in the arguments of the petitioner as regard submission of degree certificate of petitioner at the time of submitting application, but stance of respondents cannot be overlooked as degree certificate of petitioner needs to be verified from concerned University.”
On the effect of verification, the Court observed, “If such certificate will be found genuine, then there is no cavil that the petitioner, having secured 68% marks and would stand first in the merit list, then requires to be appointed to the post of Administrator-cum-Cook.” It further recorded, “In a case where, such degree certificate will be found not genuine and fake, it goes without saying that the petitioner cannot be offered appointment on such fake degree certificate.”
Finally, the Court concluded, “I am of the view that the appointment of respondent No. 3 is unsustainable in law liable to be quashed and set aside.”
The Court directed that “the appointment of respondent No. 3 is unsustainable in law liable to be quashed and set aside. The order of appointment dated 21st April, 2018, issued by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 3, is quashed and set aside.”
“The respondent authority will have to cross-verify and confirm the degree certificate of the petitioner from the concerned University. If such certificate will be found genuine, then there is no cavil that the petitioner, having secured 68% marks and would stand first in the merit list, then requires to be appointed to the post of Administrator-cum-Cook.”
“In a case where, such degree certificate will be found not genuine and fake, it goes without saying that the petitioner cannot be offered appointment on such fake degree certificate. The candidate who stood at serial No. 2 in the merit list shall be offered the appointment.”
“The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are directed to complete the said exercise within one month from today and pass appropriate order in regard to the appointment of the Administrator-cum-Cook, as aforesaid. Respondent No. 1-State is hereby directed to see that in the future such malpractices are not repeated by its officials; a robust mechanism should be implemented to ensure the purity of the public employment process.”
“The present writ petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Japan V. Dave, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Rami, Assistant Government Pleader; Mr. Prithviraj Jadeja for Ms. Shivani J. Barot, Advocate
Case Title: Sangada Hansaben Malabhai Versus State of Gujarat & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GUJHC:12937
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 8600 of 2018
Bench: Justice Maulik J. Shelat
