SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Cal) 581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Biswanath Somadder, J.
Sumita Kumari - Appellant
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondent
WP 8911 (W) of 2015
Decided On : 01-07-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. D.K. Chatterjee Mr. M. Bhattacharyya
For the Respondent: Mr. Jahar Lal De Mr. Moloy Roy

Gender-specific eligibility criteria for engagement may not constitute discrimination if it applies equally to all genders.

Headnote:

Discrimination - Transgender Community - Eligibility for ASHA Karmee (worker) Engagement

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a member of the transgender community, sought appointment as an ASHA Karmee but was ineligible due to gender-specific criteria. The court considered the eligibility criteria and the petitioner's complaint of discrimination.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the engagement of ASHA Karmee (worker) is gender specific, and neither male nor transgender community members are eligible. As such, there was no discrimination against the petitioner.

Issues: Discrimination based on gender-specific eligibility criteria for ASHA Karmee engagement.

Ratio Decidendi: The engagement of ASHA Karmee (worker) is gender specific, and the exclusion of transgender community members does not constitute discrimination as neither male nor transgender community members are eligible.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no discrimination against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is a member of the transgender community of the human species and has approached this Court complaining of the prejudice suffered for not being considered for appointment or engagement as an ASHA Karmee (worker) due to the petitioner’s inherent inability to indicate which of the two predominant sexes the petitioner belongs to. This Court had earlier passed an order on 13th May, 2015, wherein the State Mission Director’s thoughts in such regard were required to be penned by the time the matter appeared next.

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State handsover a copy of a memo dated 26th May, 2015, which may be taken on record. This memo appears to have been addressed by the Mission Director, National Health Mission, to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Purulia Sadar (West). A bare glance at the said memo reveals that the eligibility criteria for being an ASHA Karmee (worker) are quite gender specific in nature. In other words, only female members of the human species are entitled to apply for being engaged as ASHA Karmees (workers). However, even that eligibility criteria is qualified; only a married or divorced or widowed woman is eligible to apply, provided of course, the other criteria are fulfilled. Male members of the human species are not at all eligible for being considered as eligible for being engaged as ASHA Karmees (workers).

3. Now, the question comes for consideration is whether there has been any discrimination insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned, being a member of the transgender community. The answer is a clear, ‘no’. The reason is – as observed hereinbefore – that engagement of an ASHA Karmee (worker) is gender specific. A male member of the human species is not at all eligible to be considered for engagement as an ASHA Karmee (worker). Similarly, a member of the transgender community of the human species is also not eligible for being considered for engagement as an ASHA Karmee (worker). However, it would have been discriminatory if two out of the three genders of the human species were considered eligible to apply for engagement in respect of the posts-in-question to the exclusion of the transgender community members of the human species. However, that is not so in the facts of the instant case.

4. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to grant any relief, as prayed for. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top