Recently, the Rajasthan High Court has criticized the decision to transfer a 30-week pregnant woman to a location 500 kilometers away from her residence, despite the availability of numerous vacancies closer to her home.

The court deemed the move arbitrary and a display of mechanical decision-making or lack of consideration. It observed that such actions violated her fundamental rights, including the right to health, safe working conditions, and livelihood, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“State is not only supposed to act as a model employer, but also as a virtuous litigant. Whereas, in the instant case, the approach adopted by the respondents instead is rather obstructive and oppressive in nature and a complete misuse of dominant status as an employer, apart from abuse of power, to say the least.”

The single-headed bench of Justice Arun Monga directed the state to assign the petitioner an alternative posting within her city. The court also extended her joining date until a decision was made regarding her new posting.

The petitioner, a 30-week pregnant woman and a successful candidate for the post of Nursing Officer, had submitted around 100 preferences for her posting within the Udaipur division. Despite this, she was assigned a posting 500 kilometers away with an unreasonably early joining date. Additionally, her appointment letter stated that failing to join on the specified date would lead to the automatic cancellation of her appointment, prompting her to file the petition.

After considering the arguments, the Court observed that directing the petitioner to join services on such short notice, especially 500 kilometers away from her residence during advanced pregnancy, demonstrated a complete lack of sympathy and compassion. The Court held that this action violated her fundamental rights, including the right to health, safe working conditions, and livelihood, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court emphasized that there was no evidence to suggest the unavailability of suitable vacancies within the Udaipur division, as per the petitioner’s preferences. Consequently, it opined that such an arbitrary posting disregarded her circumstances and fundamental rights, calling for corrective action to ensure justice and compassion in administrative decisions.

“I am of the view that, by imposing such unreasonable conditions that threaten her employment if she is unable to comply due to legitimate personal and medical reasons, it infringes on petitioner's Right to Livelihood enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Accordingly, the State was directed to reassign her an alternative place of posting within Udaipur and till then the petitioner's joining date was extended.

Case Title: Jyoti Parmar v State Institute of Health and Family Welfare & Ors.