‘Married woman can’t get dad’s job’

In an observation which may raise some hackles in a modernised society striving for gender parity, the Bombay high court has indicated that it agrees with the state government’s directive that a married woman cannot be given a job in a state enterprise on compassionate grounds after her father, a state employee, dies while on the job.

The reasoning given by the judges is that, once married, a woman is incapable of looking after her parents due to a shift in her priorities. 

The observation was made during the hearing of a petition by one Aparna Zamvre who has moved the high court after she was removed from the state government’s employment waiting list after she got married.

A division bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and MR Bhatkar observed, “As a girl stays at her husband’s house after marriage, the possibility of her supporting the maternal house is less. Hence, the state government’s decision to deny the woman the job is not so incorrect.” The court has reserved the order on the plea.

Additional government pleader Abhinandan Vagyani said, “We have opposed the plea on the basic grounds that the woman is now living with her husband and in-laws. The benefits from the job will not be passed on to the kin of the deceased employee.”

Zamvre’s petition states that her father, Mohan Kulkarni, used to work as an engineer for the Krishna Koyna Upsatsinchan Project. After his demise on September 8, 2003, she applied for that job the next year. Her name was in the waiting list at number 146. In 2007, the collector of Sangli directed her to submit the necessary documents to prove her relation with the deceased and her qualifications.

After going through the documents, the collector, based on the government resolution passed on August 26, 1994, by the state, rejected her application. The resolution states that a daughter of an expired state employee has to be single to qualify for the job, and thus Zamvre, since she is married, cannot secure a job on compassionate grounds.

Zamvare moved the high court praying that the decision is illegal and bad in law as it denies equal opportunity rights to the daughter and thus it should be set aside and she should be appointed for the job and also be given back wages from 2004.