The single-headed bench of the Rajasthan High Court consist of Justice Dinesh Mehta held that denying government employment to an unmarried woman violates her right to equality and right to equal opportunity in public employment.

In the said matter, the Court quashes a condition in a government circular issued in November 2016 both mandating a woman to be 'married' to get appointed as anganwadi karyakarta, mini karyakarta or a helper.

"In the opinion of this Court, depriving a women of public employment on the ground of her being unmarried, apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to a woman under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India impinges upon a woman’s dignity," the Court held.

"Present case is a classic case wherein, the discrimination encountered by women has been given a new facet. An unmarried woman is discriminated against a married woman. The ostensible reason given to support the said condition that an unmarried woman after marriage would migrate to her matrimonial house does not pass muster the test of reasonableness and prudence," the Court ruled.

The judgment was delivered in response to a petition filed by Madhu, the petitioner, who had applied for a position at the Aangwadi Centre in her village in response to a job advertisement published on June 28, 2019.The advertisement was based on a circular issued by the State on November 9, 2016.

The advertisement and the circular prescribed that an unmarried woman cannot apply for the jobs advertised.

Upon applying for the positions advertised, she was informed that she did not meet the eligibility criteria for the post due to her unmarried status. Following this, the petitioner approached the High Court in 2019, and on July 29, 2019, she was granted interim relief. The authorities were directed to evaluate her application for the job in question.

"What if, the candidate marries to a boy of the same village or vicinity? What if, a married woman after being engaged as Anganwadi Karykarta moves to other place? What if a woman’s husband decides to live in woman’s parental home? What if, a woman gets widowed or divorced and decides to move to a new place? and What if, a woman does not wish to marry at all!"

"The State can neither pre-empt any such situations nor can it prevent a woman from claiming job simply because she has not tied the nuptial knot," the single-judge said.

The bench further held that a marital status or the condition of a woman to be married to work in Aanganwadi hardly fulfils any object.

"The apprehension that after marriage, a women will move onto her matrimonial house is firstly baseless and secondly, it cannot be a reason to justify or protect the offending condition. The condition of a woman to be married being absolutely unconscionable and violative of women’s right to apply and get public employment is liable to be declared arbitrary and unconstitutional," the bench observed.