JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:-Leave granted.

2. When we are moving forward to achieve the constitutional guarantee of equal rights for women the Life Insurance Corporation of India seems to be not moving beyond the status quo. The case on hand illustrates this typical attitude of the Corporation.

3. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation of India ("the Corporation"). She was called for written test and also for interview. She was successful in both the tests. She was asked to fill a declaration form which she did and submitted to the Corporation on 25 May 1989. On the same day, she was also examined by a lady doctor and found medically fit for the job. The Doctor who examined the petitioner was in the approved panel of the Corporation.

4. The petitioner was directed to undergo a short-term training programme. After successful completion of the training she was given an appointment letter dated 25 September 1989. She was appointed as Assistant in the Corporation. She was put on probation for a period of 6 months. She was entitled to be confirmed in the service subject to satisfactory work report.

5. The petitioner took leave from 9 December 1989 till 8 March 1990. In fact, she applied for maternity leave on 27 December 1989 followed by medical certificate dated 6 January 1990. She was admitted to the Nursing Home of Dr. Hira Lal on 10 January 1990. She delivered a full-term baby on 1 1 January 1990. She was discharged from Nursing Home on 19 January 1990.

6. On 13 February 1990, the petitioner was discharged from the service. It was during the period of her probation. It would appear from the order of discharge that no ground was assigned in it and it seems to be a discharge simpliciter. The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging that order on the ground that it was not a discharge simpliciter but based on some discrepancy in the declaration made by her before joining the service. The Corporation in the counter resisted the case stating that the petitioners work was not satisfactory and as such under the terms of the appointment she was discharged without notice and without assigning any reason. The High Court refused to interfere with the termination. The High Court observed that the Petitioners work during the period of probation was found to be not satisfactory.

7. The petitioner has now appealed to this Court. When the appeal was listed for preliminary hearing this Court issued notice for final disposal and made an order as follows:

"The facts of the case compel us to issue an interim mandamus directing the respondents to put the petitioner back to service and we accordingly issue a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order."

8. The Corporation upon service has filed the counter seeking to justify the termination of the petitioners services. It has been stated that the Corporation discharged the service of the petitioner while she was still a probationer. At the time of discontinuing her services as a probationer, no reasons were given and it was an order of discharge simpliciter. No stigma was imputed to the petitioner. The petitioner was on leave from 9 December 1989 till 8 March 1990. The petitioner had deliberately withheld to mention the fact of being in the family way at the time of filling up the declaration from before medical examination for fitness. The petitioner concealed the fact of her being in the family way. This was revealed later when she informed the Corporation that she had given birth to a daughter.

9. The Corporation also made reference to the terms of the declaration as filled in by the petitioner on 25 May 1989:

"6. To be filled in by female candidates only in the presence of the Medical Examiner:

(a) Are you married - Yes.

(b) If so, please state

(i) Your Husbands name in full & occupation

Mr. Pradeeep Mathur, Law Officer, Central Pollution Control Board,