The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Gujarat Public Service Commission and others in a plea challenging the order of the Gujarat High Court whereby the High Court granted relaxation of marks for women in an examination held for the appointment of forest officers.
The bench of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Ajay Rastogi also stayed the operation of the Gujarat High Court order which held that 21 posts of Range Forest Officer (RFO) in Gujarat, including posts presently occupied by the male petitioners, shall be vacated and women candidates shall be appointed to the said posts within a period of 4 weeks.
The Gujarat High Court while giving its decision relied on the Supreme Court judgment named Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Others dated 17.2.2020, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 469 in which the Apex Court directed grant of Permanent Commissions to women in the Army’s Short Service Commissions (SSC) in its landmark Judgment. The Apex Court on Friday quoted Justice D.Y. Chandrachud on the constitutional spirit of equality without any gender discrimination in the following terms :
“Seventy years after the birth of a postcolonial independent State, there is still a need for change in attitudes and mindsets to recognize the commitment to the values of the Constitution. The submissions advanced in the note tendered to the Supreme Court are based on sex stereotypes premises on assumptions about socially ascribed roles of gender which discriminate against women. Underlying the statement that it is a “greater challenge” for women officers to meet the hazards of service “owing to their prolonged absence during pregnancy, motherhood and domestic obligations towards their children and families” is a strong stereotype which assumes that domestic obligations rest solely on women. Reliance on the “inherent physiological differences between men and women” rests in a deeply entrenched stereotypical and constitutionally flawed notion that women are the “weaker” sex and may not undertake tasks that are “too arduous” for them. Arguments founded on the physical strengths and weaknesses of men and women and on assumptions about women in the social context of marriage and family do not constitute a constitutionally valid basis for denying equal opportunity to women officer.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was assisted by AOR Nupur Kumar, appeared on behalf of the male petitioners and pointed out Article 335 of the Constitution and said that relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standard of evaluation can only be done for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and it cannot be done for the purpose of reservation for women.
It is also the contention of the petitioners that the selection process began in 2010 and the petitioners joined service in 2016 and have been working as Range Forest Officers with a clean record after obtaining the required training.
Read Also: Delhi HC directs hospitals short on oxygen supply to approach nodal officers before the court
To this, Justice Navin Sinha said that this matter requires consideration and needs to be heard at length. Thereafter, he issued notice and stayed the operation of Gujarat High Court order. The matter will be next taken up for hearing after 8 weeks.