lsquoFreedom fightersrsquo wards job policy discriminatoryrsquo

  • | Sunday | 19th August, 2018

In fact, it is out of sync with the constitutional values and principles. It is certainly not in tune with the changing times. Predominant mindset of male chauvinism is all pervading,” the judgment said.The division bench said action of the respondents by not giving reservation to married women and not allotting them wards of freedom fighter certificate was illegal and arbitrary.“Time has, therefore, come for the court to affirmatively emphasise that it is not open to the state if it has to act in conformity with the fundamental principles of equality embodied in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution to discriminate against married daughters by depriving them of the benefit of the reservation, which is made available to a son irrespective of his marital status,” it observed. SHIMLA: On the issue of gender discrimination in the state policy on reservation in government jobs for wards of freedom fighters, the Himachal Pradesh high court while terming the policy arbitrary and illegal has quashed and set it aside.The court said there was no reason or justification to exclude amarried daughter and consequently the children of a married daughter.Once a decision has been taken to extend the benefit of horizontal reservation to descendants of freedom fighters, whether the descendant is a son or a daughter should make no difference whatsoever, it added.Through a letter petition, Rekha Sharma and Geeta Sharma, daughters of late Het Ram Sharma (a freedom fighter) of Dadyal (Sundernagar), Mandi district , had highlighted gender discrimination in the state policy while providing reservation in government jobs to the wards of freedom fighters.While disposing of the petition, a division bench of acting Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Sharma in a recent judgment said any discrimination against a daughter would be discrimination on grounds of gender.It held that the policy of the state confining benefits to unmarried daughter alone, unlike married son, is not in line withthe object sought to be achieved by conferring the benefit of reservation on the wards of freedom fighters.The state government had taken the stand in the court that with the solemnization of marriage, a daughter severs her relationship with her parental family, for she gets “transplanted” into the family of her husband, and as such cannot claim herself to be part of the family of a freedom fighter.“We find the stand adopted by the state to be absolutely archaic and disappointing.

SHIMLA: On the issue of gender discrimination in the state policy on reservation in government jobs for wards of freedom fighters, the Himachal Pradesh high court while terming the policy arbitrary and illegal has quashed and set it aside.The court said there was no reason or justification to exclude amarried daughter and consequently the children of a married daughter.Once a decision has been taken to extend the benefit of horizontal reservation to descendants of freedom fighters, whether the descendant is a son or a daughter should make no difference whatsoever, it added.Through a letter petition, Rekha Sharma and Geeta Sharma, daughters of late Het Ram Sharma (a freedom fighter) of Dadyal (Sundernagar), Mandi district , had highlighted gender discrimination in the state policy while providing reservation in government jobs to the wards of freedom fighters.While disposing of the petition, a division bench of acting Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Sharma in a recent judgment said any discrimination against a daughter would be discrimination on grounds of gender.It held that the policy of the state confining benefits to unmarried daughter alone, unlike married son, is not in line withthe object sought to be achieved by conferring the benefit of reservation on the wards of freedom fighters.The state government had taken the stand in the court that with the solemnization of marriage, a daughter severs her relationship with her parental family, for she gets “transplanted” into the family of her husband, and as such cannot claim herself to be part of the family of a freedom fighter.“We find the stand adopted by the state to be absolutely archaic and disappointing. It is certainly not in tune with the changing times. In fact, it is out of sync with the constitutional values and principles. Predominant mindset of male chauvinism is all pervading,” the judgment said.The division bench said action of the respondents by not giving reservation to married women and not allotting them wards of freedom fighter certificate was illegal and arbitrary.“Time has, therefore, come for the court to affirmatively emphasise that it is not open to the state if it has to act in conformity with the fundamental principles of equality embodied in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution to discriminate against married daughters by depriving them of the benefit of the reservation, which is made available to a son irrespective of his marital status,” it observed.

If You Like This Story, Support NYOOOZ

NYOOOZ SUPPORTER

NYOOOZ FRIEND

Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.


Stay updated with all the Latest Shimla headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.

Related Articles