"Discrimination Based On Physical Attribute": Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Woman Denied Geologist Post Citing 1cm Short Height

In a significant ruling by the Rajasthan High Court, the bench of Justice Farjnad Ali granted relief to a woman fighting to get the post of the geologist that she had secured based on merit but was denied by the government since she was considered 1 cm shorter than the minimum limit prescribed in some guidelines.

The Court held that when the service rules for the post did not prescribe any criteria in relation to height, rejecting a meritorious candidate based on certain non-mandatory instructions amounted to discrimination based on physical attributes and consequently a violation of fundamental rights of the aspirant.

“Since the statutory rules framed regarding recruitment of the personnel in the Mines and Geology Service does not prescribe any minimum height for the candidates, thus, the act of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner is a discrimination based on physical attribute. Doing discrimination on account of height of an aspirant in services, where height of the individual has no bearance and in no manner influence performance of the worker in the job is certainly violative of his/her fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.”

The petitioner's name had appeared in the final list of selected candidates for the post. However, she was not issued an appointment letter and was orally informed that she was 1 cm shorter than the required height for the post.

It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that neither the advertisement for the post nor the Rajasthan Mines and Geological Service Rules, 1960, (“1960 Rules”) that governed the post of geologist, mentioned the height criteria. Hence, the act of denying appointment to the petitioner was illegal and arbitrary.

Contrary to this, the counsel for the respondent submitted that instructions regarding the physical examination of candidate for admission into various state services under the Government of Rajasthan prescribed the minimum height requirement for the post.

Rejecting the argument put forth by the counsel for the respondent, the Court opined that the instructions were not mandatory in nature and were merely guidelines for convenience. Since the 1960 Rules did not prescribe such requirement, the guidelines could not have a statutory force and overriding effect upon the 1960 Rules.

The Court further opined that the purpose of prescribing physical criteria for posts was to ensure that the candidate appointed for the post performs it efficiently. Hence, it was important to look at the nature of duties attached to a post to adjudge the physical eligibility criteria. After perusing the nature of work for the post of a geologist, the Court observed that the duties had no connection with height, neither would a little shortness of height hamper the assigned work in any way. The Court also highlighted that irrelevance of minimum height requirement for the post was also apparent by the prescribed relaxation in the height criteria for certain classes of people who would have to do the exact same tasks, like people from certain tribes having lower average height or people with locomotor disability.

In this background, the Court ruled that in the absence of any relevance of a physical attribute to a post, rejecting a merit-based candidature for not fulfilling that was discrimination based on physical attribute. Hence, discriminating the petitioner on account of height, when it was not relevant to the post in question was violative of her fundamental rights.

“Being constitutional court, this court would not allow the executive or any department to do discrimination among candidates on this count alone when otherwise they are eligible. In these circumstances, this court is of the firm view that simply because the petitioner is 1 cm short in height than the minimum height prescribed in the guidelines, she cannot be deprived from getting appointment for which she is fully eligible.”

The Court observed that the acts of the respondents rejecting the petitioner's candidature was arbitrary, perverse and against the principles of law. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to grant appointment to the petitioner who was declared eligible for the same.

Title: Monika Kanwar Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 174

Click Here To Read/Download Order