Court directs TNURB to recruit pregnant woman who failed running test by 0.30 sec
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai:19.01.2019
Asserting that prescribing the same standards as others for a pregnant woman amounts to unequal treatment, the Madras high court directed the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Recruitment Board (TNURB) to appoint a pregnant woman, who failed to clear a running test by 0.30 seconds, as grade II constable.
“The provisions of the Constitution and the decisions of the various courts clearly show that effective equality and elimination of general bias require special treatment to women who are facing special needs of that time, the treatment meted out to those of them by declining even the normal protection is highly objectionable,” Justice S Vimala (since retired) said.
Pregnancy and child birth should not be considered as impediment for discharge of duty. Concessions given to pregnant women shall not be construed as a concession towards personal comfort of the women. The child birth should be considered as a contribution to continuity of generations, without which the existence of the world is impossible, Justice S Vimala (since retired) said.
The issue pertains to a plea moved by R Devika, who was denied job as grade II constable since she took 18.20 seconds to complete 100mt running test, while the norm required her to finish it in 17.50 seconds.
According to the petitioner, she was eight weeks pregnant on the day when the physical test was conducted and hence could not complete the test in the prescribed time.
Opposing the plea, the board contended that the norms should be followed scrupulously, and no deviation can be permitted for any reason.
Rejecting the contention, Justice Vimala said, “The participation by the petitioner, who was eight weeks pregnant, in a running test itself is a sign of courage, as persons similarly placed would be afraid of because of fear of losing the child through abortion.”
Taking 0.30 seconds extra should have been considered negligible under the given context as well as under the international standards prescribed for evaluation, she added.
The petitioner said she was eight weeks pregnant on the day when the physical test was conducted and hence could not complete the test in the prescribed time
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai:19.01.2019
Asserting that prescribing the same standards as others for a pregnant woman amounts to unequal treatment, the Madras high court directed the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Recruitment Board (TNURB) to appoint a pregnant woman, who failed to clear a running test by 0.30 seconds, as grade II constable.
“The provisions of the Constitution and the decisions of the various courts clearly show that effective equality and elimination of general bias require special treatment to women who are facing special needs of that time, the treatment meted out to those of them by declining even the normal protection is highly objectionable,” Justice S Vimala (since retired) said.
Pregnancy and child birth should not be considered as impediment for discharge of duty. Concessions given to pregnant women shall not be construed as a concession towards personal comfort of the women. The child birth should be considered as a contribution to continuity of generations, without which the existence of the world is impossible, Justice S Vimala (since retired) said.
The issue pertains to a plea moved by R Devika, who was denied job as grade II constable since she took 18.20 seconds to complete 100mt running test, while the norm required her to finish it in 17.50 seconds.
According to the petitioner, she was eight weeks pregnant on the day when the physical test was conducted and hence could not complete the test in the prescribed time.
Opposing the plea, the board contended that the norms should be followed scrupulously, and no deviation can be permitted for any reason.
Rejecting the contention, Justice Vimala said, “The participation by the petitioner, who was eight weeks pregnant, in a running test itself is a sign of courage, as persons similarly placed would be afraid of because of fear of losing the child through abortion.”
Taking 0.30 seconds extra should have been considered negligible under the given context as well as under the international standards prescribed for evaluation, she added.
The petitioner said she was eight weeks pregnant on the day when the physical test was conducted and hence could not complete the test in the prescribed time
No comments:
Post a Comment