High Court Directs Gujarat PSC To Separately Hold Interview For New Mother Who Initially Couldn't Appear For Interview

In the ruling, Justice Nikhil S Kariel emphasized, “In the considered opinion of this Court, without delving further into the facts, the grievance of the petitioner could be assuaged at this stage by directing the respondent- Public Service Commission to follow their own policy inasmuch as when the Chairman of the Public Service Commission being empowered to consider the case of female applicants, who had either delivered a child or who were pregnant and whose due dates were near about the dates of the interview then, the present would be a fit case, inasmuch, as the petitioner having delivered a child on 31.12.2023 it would have been next to impossible for the petitioner to have attended the interview on 01.01.2024 and 02.01.2024.”

The court's decision was made in response to a petition filed by a woman who missed her interview for a Class-2 position due to her recent delivery.

The petitioner, Radhika Shankarbhai Pawar, filed a petition seeking several directions from the court regarding the selection process for the position of Assistant Manager (Finance & Accounts), Class 1, with the Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation (GMDC), as advertised under GPSC/201920/137.

Pawar sought a direction to the respondents to extend the interview time for the mentioned position. Additionally, she sought an order to halt further procedures related to the aforementioned advertisement until her concerns were addressed.

Lastly, Pawar sought the court to prevent the declaration of final results for the post of Assistant Manager (Finance & Accounts), Class 2, under the same advertisement.After successfully passing the written examination for the post of Assistant Manager (Finance & Accounts), Class 2, Pawar was called to participate in an oral interview. However, she was unable to attend the Public Service Commission office due to having given birth the day before the interview date.

She argued that she had informed the authorities beforehand about her advanced stage of pregnancy and inability to attend the interview. Nevertheless, her request was dismissed by the respondent authority, who maintained that she should have been present on the scheduled dates.

Notably, Pawar having appeared in the written examination, was informed of being selected for interview, more particularly the interview programme being declared by the respondents vide communication dated 18.12.2023 whereby the proposed dates for interview were mentioned as 01.01.2024 and 02.01.2024.

However, on the very day, she had intimated to the respondents that the petitioner was in advanced stage of pregnancy, more particularly the due date for the delivery being fixed in the first week of January 2024 and therefore, it would be not possible for the petitioner to have attended the interview and whereas it was requested that either the interview programme may be postponed or the petitioner may be permitted to appear for the interview through online mode.

While the matter was under consideration, the respondent, the Public Service Commission, claimed in their reply that the petitioner had been orally notified to attend and had agreed, despite no such documentation existing. However, during this time, the petitioner gave birth to a child on December 31, 2023. Immediately after, the petitioner informed the respondents via email about her recent delivery and expressed her inability to attend the interview, requesting a postponement. However, the said request was rejected by the respondents.

The Court referenced an office order dated 23.05.2016, which authorized the Chairman to extend the interview date in exceptional circumstances, specifically mentioning situations outlined in the office order itself.

Upon reviewing the office order, the Court noted that the Chairman had the authority to extend interview dates for female candidates who had recently given birth or were close to their due date during the scheduled interviews.

The Advocate representing the respondents argued that since interview dates were set well in advance, they couldn't accommodate the petitioner's case under the mentioned policy.

In this view of the matter, the Court directed the Gujarat Public Service Commission, “to hold the interview for the petitioner separately withing a period of 15 days from today and whereas the interim relief granted by this Court shall continue till the interviews are over and the results are declared and whereas after interview of the petitioner, the respondent Public Service Commission shall act according to the merit position of the petitioner.”

Accordingly the petition was allowed by the Court.

Appearance:

MR BRIJESH K RAMANUJ(9898) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

MR. RISHIN R PATEL(7222) for the Respondent(s) No. 3

Case No.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 425 of 2024

Case Title: Radhika Shankarbhai Pawar Versus Gujarat Public Service Commission (Gpsc) Through Secretary

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 12

Click Here To Read / Download Judgment