GO barring male heirs in noon meal jobs leads to gender-based discrimination: Madras HC

The court rejected the government’s GO that male heirs cannot be offered the job as the category is 100 per cent reserved for women, terming it illegal as it discriminates on the basis of sex.

Update: 2024-07-07 01:30 GMT

Madras High Court

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court quashed a Government Order (GO) denying male heirs from claiming employment on compassionate grounds for jobs coming under the noon meal scheme.

The court rejected the government’s GO that male heirs cannot be offered the job as the category is 100 per cent reserved for women, terming it illegal as it discriminates on the basis of sex.

Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy termed the GO of the Social Welfare and Woman Rights department violative of Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution as it excludes male heirs completely from appointment on compassionate grounds while allowing a petition moved by G Karthikeyan seeking a job.

The object of providing a compassionate appointment is to provide succour to the family which is in penury, said the judge in the verdict. Just because the woman employee has left only a male legal heir, a compassionate appointment cannot be deprived, the judge wrote.

“It not only affects the male children of female employees, but, effectively puts the female employees a par below to that of their male counterparts,” read the judgment.

The judge directed the State to forward the application of the petitioner to the collector of Nagapattinam for consideration of employment in any other suitable posts along with other candidates subject to eligibility conditions. The judge also directed the State to complete the exercise within four weeks.

The petitioner’s mother while serving as a cook at the government higher secondary school, Keelaiyur, died in harness, in November 2021.

Her son applied for an appointment on compassionate grounds to secure a job as a noon meal organiser or cook.

However, the Social Welfare and Women Rights department refused the application of the petitioner as the employment in the scheme is only restricted to women.

Tags:    

Similar News