Unmarried woman denied job on assumption of marriage in future: Gujarat High Court sets aside ‘appointment tainted by favoritism’
In a strongly worded decision that upheld the constitutional right to equality in the public employment, the Gujarat High Court ruled that refusal to employ an unmarried woman on the assumption that she might get married and relocate is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court set aside the appointment of a less meritorious candidate to the post of Administrator-cum-Cook in the district of Dahod, which it described as a “classic example of outright favouritism”, and directed authorities to take new measures strictly on the basis of merit, subject to verification of the petitioner’s educational qualification.Justice Maulik J. Shelat delivered the judgment on February 16, 2026, while partly allowing a writ petition filed by Sangada Hansaben Malabhai, who had challenged the legality of the appointment made by the Mamlatdar, Taluka Jhalod, in favour of another candidate despite the petitioner securing significantly higher marks.Background:The conflict originated when the Mamlatdar, Jhalod, initiated a recruitment process to fill the position of Administrator-cum-Cook. The respondent No. 3 and petitioner, as well as the other candidates, applied pursuant to the advertisement.The petitioner had secured 68% marks in graduation, whereas respondent No. 3 had secured only 48.94% in her final year examination, and there was uncertainty even regarding her graduate status at the time of application. However, in the merit list prepared by the Mamlatdar, respondent No. 3 was shown as having secured higher marks and was placed above the petitioner.The petitioner argued that despite being more meritorious, she was ranked low on the merit list and was refused appointment, whereas respondent No. 3 was appointed by manipulation and favoritism. She relied on documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, which demonstrated that she had submitted her educational certificates and possessed higher qualifications than the appointed candidate.Aggrieved by what she termed an arbitrary and illegal appointment, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the appointment order and her own appointment based on merit.Petitioner’s Submissions:Mr. Japan V. Dave, who represented the petitioner, argued that the merit list was deliberately manipulated to favour respondent No. 3. He submitted that the petitioner had provided all the necessary educational certificates, such as her certificate of graduation and these were later obtained from the Mamlatdar’s office under the Right to Information Act.He also argued that the appointment violated the recruitment criteria and constitutional principles of equality because candidates having low qualification were preferred over more meritorious candidates without jusitification.Reliance was placed on documentary evidence showing that the petitioner possessed the highest marks among the candidates and ought to have been ranked first.State’s Defence:Opposing the petition, Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Siddharth Rami argued that the petitioner had not provided her graduation certificate and other supporting documents at the time of recruitment. In the absence of proof of qualification, the authority had selected another candidate. However, the State submitted that if directed by the Court, the petitioner’s certificate could be verified from the concerned university to determine its authenticity.The State further indicated that the Mamlatdar involved in the appointment had already retired and hence could not provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances.Respondent No. 3’s Submissions:Counsel for respondent No. 3 argued that the petitioner’s degree certificate appeared suspicious and might be fake. It was submitted that attempts to verify the certificate had not been successful, and therefore, the petitioner could not claim appointment based on questionable credentials.It was further argued that respondent No. 3 had been working on the post for more than eight years and her appointment should not be disturbed, especially when doubts existed regarding the petitioner’s qualifications.Court Finds “Classic Example of Favoritism”After examining the entire record, the Court discovered that the recruitment process had gross irregularities and that the appointment of the respondent No. 3 was unsustainable.The Court observed:“This is a classic example of outright favouritism shown by the Mamlatdar… whereby he appointed respondent No. 3 despite her being at serial No. 4 in the merit list.”The Court reviewed the list of merit and especially the comments column, and discovered that the more qualified candidates were dismissed based on some flimsy and unreasonable reasons. One of the most striking reasons recorded was that an unmarried village woman might get married in future and relocate.Condemning such reasoning, the Court held:“There is nothing on record to show and substantiate… that an unmarried village girl cannot be appointed because in near future she might get married and shift to some other village. Such a reason is not only arbitrary, fanciful, frivolous, but violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”The Court held that such reasoning clearly reflected arbitrariness and favoritism and manipulation with an aim of favoring a certain candidate. The Court also noted that the Court could have prosecuted the Mamlatdar on the grounds of such unlawful actions but did not because the officer had retired by the time the Court got to know about it.The High Court found that the petitioner’s educational certificates were indeed part of the official record, as they bore the seal of the Mamlatdar’s office and had been obtained under RTI. The Court held that the State’s claim that the petitioner had not submitted her qualification documents was not convincing.At the same time, the Court acknowledged that doubts had been raised regarding the authenticity of the petitioner’s degree certificate and held that its genuineness must be verified before granting appointment.In view of its findings, the Court quashed the appointment order dated April 21, 2018, issued in favour of respondent No. 3. However, instead of directly appointing the petitioner, the Court directed the authorities to first verify her graduation certificate from the concerned university.The Court held:“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.”The Court further clarified:“In a case where such degree certificate will be found not genuine and fake, the candidate who stood at serial No. 2 in the merit list shall be offered the appointment.”The Court instructed the authorities to accomplish this exercise within one month.The Court also provided wider guidelines to the State Government prior to the conclusion so as to make the recruitment processes transparent and free of fraud. The Court asked the State to put necessary protective measures and systems to stop such malpractices in future so that the purity of employment by the State could be upheld.In view of these findings, the Court quashed the appointment of respondent No. 3 and directed the authorities to verify the petitioner’s degree certificate and proceed with appointment strictly in accordance with merit. The writ petition was partly allowed. The writ petition was therefore granted in part.Before parting with the matter, the Court also directed the State Government to ensure that such malpractices are not repeated in future and to implement a robust mechanism to maintain transparency and purity in public employment.(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
