Excise Constable Exam | "Male Chauvinism Unacceptable": Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Different PET Criteria For Males & Females

The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed two pleas challenging criteria of different yardsticks for physical efficiency tests for males and females for the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board Excise Constable recruitment exam.

The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that the classification of men and women in physical efficiency is not arbitrary and therefore, the allegation of discrimination between men and women is baseless and cannot be accepted.

"In the present recruitment, females have succeeded in huge numbers and it appears that unsuccessful male candidates are not able to cope up with the fact that female have overnumbered them in merit. It is an example of 'male chauvinism' which is unacceptable in twenty first century," the Court further remarked.

The case in brief

Petitioners (all male candidates) participated in the recruitment process to the post of 'Excise Constable' according to the selection procedure prescribed under Uttar Pradesh Direct Recruitment to Group 'C' Post (Mode and Procedure) Rules:2015 in pursuance of an Advertisement issued by U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board.

The Petitioners who belonged to the OBC community remained successful in the physical efficiency test, however, in anticipation that they would not be selected in the final merit list, they filed the instant plea on March 10, 2022, and soon thereafter, on 15.3.2022, the final result was declared and as expected they could not find a place in the merit list.

Their plea essentially sought a direction to the UP Govt to refix the new criteria for selection in physical efficiency test for both male and female candidates, which could be made eligible for both types of candidates to be selected in an admissible ratio or alternatively direct the respondents to fixed another criterion of selection which could balance the gap in both male and female candidates in the selection of Excise Constable.

It was contended that there was discrimination between male and female candidates in respect of their respective criteria for physical efficiency tests being different and it was comparatively easy for female candidates to score more marks in comparison to male candidates and since a consolidated merit list was prepared, female candidates have marched over male candidates by big numbers of 143 seats, i.e. much more than their reserved quota of 81 seats.

It was further submitted that in the case of different yardsticks for male and female candidates, there ought to be a separate merit list for males and females and the number of selected female candidates ought to have restricted to their reserved quota i.e. 81 seats and no more.

However, they added, the common consolidated merit list had led to arbitrariness and it had adversely affected the male candidates such as petitioners who were not able to find a place in the final select list, whereas female candidates had taken advantage, therefore, Article 14 of the Constitution was violated.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court noted that petitioners had participated in the recruitment process with open eyes, having complete knowledge of different criteria of physical efficiency tests for males and females.

Therefore, the Court further observed that in view of the law on the issue, the Court held that petitioners are estopped from challenging the recruitment process as well as physical efficiency test being different for the males and females after they have participated therein with open eyes.

Further, the Court observed that the difference in criteria of physical efficiency test is based on the physical strength of a male and a female as in a number of research papers it has come that in a normal situation, a male has more physical strength than her female counterpart.

"The argument to challenge criteria of female for physical efficiency test is not only without any legal basis but is also against women empowerment," the Court further held.

In this regard, the Court also said that in the recently concluded Common Wealth Games, the fastest runner for 200 meters amongst male and female, there was a difference of running time i.e. for male Gold Medalist, it was 19.08 seconds, whereas for female gold medalist it was 22.02 seconds.

"Similarly, in long jump, gold medalist (male) had jumped 8.41 metres, whereas Gold Medalist (female) had jumped of 7.00 metres, i.e. lesser than male athelete. Even in cricket, area of field is lesser when females play in respect of the area when male players play," the Court further remarked.

In view of the above discussions, the arguments against different criteria for male and female candidates for their respective physical efficiency tests were held to be not only baseless but unreasonable also, therefore, the selection of female candidates more than their reserved quota of 20% was also found to be not arbitrary or erroneous.

Case title - Pramod Kumar Singh And 5 Others v.  State Of U.P. And 11 Others along with a connected plea [WRIT - A No. - 4225 of 2022]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 404

Click here To Read/Download Order