The Supreme Court on Thursday has strongly disapproved the exclusion of an otherwise eligible woman from a recruitment process on the ground of her sex, observing that such discrimination cannot be justified by the nature of the work involved.
The case concerned a woman candidate who had fulfilled the eligibility conditions for the post but was not taken into employment because she was a woman. The record noted that the corporation’s own recruitment requisition had declared women eligible for the position.
The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was told that the nature of the job involved lifting and handling gas cylinders.
To this Justice Kumar remarked that:
“
“Day in and day out they will lift these gas cylinders in their house. Men will not be there when the gas is over. It is she who will check the gas cylinder.”
The observation came when counsel referred to the “suitability” of the woman for the job, citing the physical nature of the work. The SC sharply questioned this reasoning: “Being a lady is an ineligibility, disqualification?”
The Court took note of the statement of an official of Indian Oil Corporation’s Marketing Division, New Delhi, who had stated that the woman had fulfilled all the eligibility conditions, yet was not being taken “as being a woman.” The Court observed:
“
“We are from Bharat, India. Our tenet is, we say that every day that we respect women. We treat them on par with Goddess. ???? यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवताः And this is what we do. It is an affront to the womanhood and that too, by the government of India undertaking. She was a female worker. And as per the statement of NDW1, who is deputy general manager, deputy manager Indian Oil Corporation, Marketing Division, New Delhi has also stated, ‘The plaintiff has fulfilled all the eligibility condition. But she is not being taken as being a woman.”
The Court noted that the fact that the petitioner had not acquired a vested right to appointment could not justify discriminatory treatment during the recruitment process. An authority conducting recruitment is required to act in accordance with law even at the stage of selection.
It emphasised that the absence of an enforceable right to appointment cannot become a licence to discriminate between otherwise eligible candidates on the ground of sex.
“
“The fact that the petitioner did not acquire a vested right to appointment does not mean that the recruitment process is immune from judicial scrutiny. An authority conducting recruitment is required or expected to act in accordance with law even at the stage of selection. The absence of an indefeasible right to appointment cannot be treated as a licence to discriminate between eligible candidates on the ground of sex.”
The Court further found that the evidence, particularly the recruitment requisition and the employer’s own admission, established that the petitioner’s exclusion was materially attributable to her being a woman. In the absence of any legal prohibition or restriction on the employment of women in the concerned work, such exclusion could not be sustained.
The Court observed that the petitioner had pursued her claim for several years and had ultimately reached the age of superannuation. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, the Court concluded that compensation would constitute appropriate relief instead of appointment.
The Court accordingly directed Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the petitioner ₹12 lakh as compensation in lieu of appointment.
The amount has been directed to be paid within eight weeks. In case of failure to make the payment within the stipulated period, the amount will carry interest at 6% per annum from the expiry of the eight-week period until payment or deposit.