Gujarat High Court criticizes GPSC for requiring a lady to travel 300 kilometers for a job interview two days following childbirth

Last Updated on January 15, 2024 by News Desk

Issue:

The Gujarat High Court has condemned GPSC for its gender-insensitive demand to go for a job interview after delivery.

Facts of the Case:

The Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) was chastised by the Gujarat High Court for allegedly showing “absolute gender insensitivity” to Radhika Pawar, one of the candidates who was shortlisted for the Assistant Manager (Finance and Accounts) Class II role. Pawar was deemed successful at the end of the 2020–2023 selection process, which began. Her dilemma, nevertheless, began when she got an email in the ninth month of her pregnancy arranging the last interviews for January 1 and 2, 2024. Because Gandhinagar district is 300 miles away, she quickly notified GPSC about her pregnancy and the delivery that followed on December 31. She also requested an alternate plan.

Rejecting any wiggle room, GPSC demanded that she show up on January 2. Justice Nikhil Kariel, addressing the subject on January 9, chastised GPSC’s gender insensitivity, underlining the need of understanding the problems post-childbirth.

Arguments Presented by Parties:

Pawar’s main argument was that it was not feasible to go 300 kilometers for an interview just two days after delivery. But the GPSC was unyielding, turning down her request for a delay or other accommodations.

While conducting selections is GPSC’s primary responsibility, Justice Kariel argued that the agency could not turn down a legitimate request, particularly considering how long the selection process takes. The Court emphasized the importance of tact, offering alternatives such as delay, online interviews, or other rule-compliant remedies.

Conclusion:

GPSC was chastised by Justice Kariel’s January 9 judgment for its gender-insensitive position and for not taking the petitioner’s legitimate request into account. As it argued for flexibility in the face of legitimate concerns, the Court emphasized GPSC’s need to react responsibly in such circumstances.

Awaiting GPSC’s answer, the Court ordered the Class II (SEBC category) Assistant Manager (Finance and Accounts) post to be unfilled until further directives. The case’s next hearing is scheduled on January 19, which might indicate a change in the direction of more sympathetic hiring practices. In light of gender-specific obstacles, the incident raises more questions about how important it is to accommodate personal events within professional commitments.

Case title: Radhika Shankarbhai Pawar vs GPSC

Written By: Nikita Shankar @nikitaashankar