Rajasthan High Court: In a case wherein, the petitioners had filed a writ petition to challenge the respondent’s action of rejecting the petitioners on the parameters of Physical Standard Test (‘PST’), Dinesh Mehta, J., opined that that there was no error in the assessment of the petitioners and accordingly dismissed the petition. The Court also stated that apart from lacking any scientific validity, the practice adopted by the respondents was humiliating, derogatory and an affront to a woman’s dignity and suggested the Government departments to relook such criterion.
Background
In the instant case, all the three petitioners had contested for the post of Forest Guard pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 11-11-2020. Subsequently, the petitioners cleared the written examination. Further, though the petitioners cleared Physical Efficiency Test (‘PET’), but, when they appeared for PST, they were rejected on the parameters related to chest measurements set by the respondents.
According to the parameters, a female candidate was required to have the following measurement of her chest- “Normal -79 cm, Expansion- 5cm”.
The petitioners asserted that their measurement was more than the norms set by the respondents. Though, medical report by any other Government Hospital had not been placed on record, yet believing the petitioners’ assertion, interim order was passed in the instant case by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 26-07-2023. Thereafter, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (‘AIIMS’), Jodhpur was directed to constitute a Medical Board and take chest measurement of the petitioners.
Accordingly, report dated 28-07-2023 with regard to measurement of all the three petitioners was sent by the AIIMS, Jodhpur.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court on perusal of the report noted that Petitioner 1 and 2 had chest measurement less than 79 cm and their expansion was also less than 5 cm, whereas chest size of Petitioner 3 was above the set norms, but her expansion was less than 5 cm. Subsequently, the Court opined that there was no error in the assessment of the petitioners by the respondents, and accordingly, dismissed the petition.
The Court further opined that setting up chest measurement to be a criterion, particularly for female candidates, was arbitrary and outrageous. It was a clear dent on a lady’s dignity and right of privacy guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court opined that the chest’s size and its expansion in case of a female candidate might not necessarily be a pointer of physical fitness and litmus test of lungs’ capacity. Apart from being irrational, prescribing such criterion disrupted the dignity, bodily autonomy and mental integrity of a woman.
The Court opined that the recruitment was over and all the candidates had been subjected to such test, hence, the Court would not disturb the recruitment which had taken place. However, some deliberation was necessary about the requirement of chest measurement of female candidates for a recruitment of Forest Guard or Forester or any other post.
The Court opined that the qualifying criteria was based on incorrect assumptions that having a minimum chest girth would ensure the physical fitness of a woman. Such practice lacked scientific validity, and was humiliating, derogatory and an affront to a woman’s dignity.
The Court noted that a candidate was required to clear PET, in which she had to jump 1.35 meters (Standing Broad Jump) and throw shot put (4 kg) to a distance of 4.5 meters, hence, the condition of minimum chest circumference looked irrational and unwarranted. The Court also stated that no such test was being provided for recruitment to the post of Police Constable in the case of female candidates.
The Court opined that measuring expansion to determine lung capacity was understandable but prescribing a ‘minimum chest circumference’ was absolutely ludicrous. The Court stated that there were modern tests available for the same purpose and if the respondents did not wish to resort to such methods, they could have asked the candidates to run for a particular distance, as done by the State in Police Constable recruitments.
This Court opined that it was perturbed by the lack of sensitivity exhibited by the administrative authorities while formulating the hiring Policy or Rules. Further, the Court opined that when the yardstick of minimum chest size was not provided for other government jobs involving comparable or more physical activity, one could not see any reason behind the such criterion, particularly for female candidates.
The Court stated that a copy of this order should be sent to the Chief Secretary, Secretary of the Forest Department and the Secretary of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan to relook such criterion or relevant Rule. The Court further suggested that Government departments might solicit experts’ opinion to explore the possibility of alternative means to determine the desired level of lung capacity so as to ensure that unwarranted humiliation of women candidates was avoided.
[Vandana Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1336, order dated 10-08-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Amit Gour, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Digvijay Singh Jasol, Advocate.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
