Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.45 seconds)
Siniya Mol.C.S. Aged 24 vs K.S.Eb. Rep. By The Secretary on 22 January, 2007 cites

Vijayamma vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 20 July, 1977

15. Though the above contention in the first blush, appears to be attractive, it falls to the ground in the light of the discussions made and the weighty reasons given with reference to an identical question posed for the consideration of this Court in Vijayamma v. State of Kerala (cited supra). Vijayamma, the petitioner in that case, was not considered for promotion as Stenographer in the Police Department, because women were found unsuitable for that work having regard to the 'peculiar nature' of the job requirements, namely, touring along with officers and working at odd hours. The court found that the real WPC No. 18140/2006 -20- and substantial reason for, and the direct and immediate ground of her ineligibility for promotion was that she was a woman. It was held that whatever be the ultimate reason behind the order, and however, 'laudable' it may be, that would not remove the prohibition of Article 16(2), for 'the effect of the order involves an infringement' of her fundamental right under Article 16(1), and that effect is brought about by denying promotion to the petitioner in the Police Department only on the ground of sex. The learned Judge noticed that the words 'on grounds only of sex' in clauses (1) of Article 15 and (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India appear to have been taken from Section 298(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935 which reads as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Female Workers (Muster Roll) And Amr on 8 March, 2000

25. Shri. N.N. Sugunapalan, senior advocate appearing for the respondent-Board submitted that the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) (cited supra), had occasion to observe that women in rural areas who are poor and illiterate were forced by sheer poverty to come out to seek various jobs so as to overcome the economic hardship. It was also observed that they take up jobs which involve hard physical labour. In the background facts of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that the female workers who are engaged by the respondent-Corporation have to work at the site of construction and repairing roads and that their services had always been utilised for digging of trenches. In paragraph 33 of the above judgment the Apex Court observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 160 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

C.N. Rajamma vs State Of Kerala on 30 June, 2005

Learned senior counsel for the Board submitted that the Board is worried about the physical limitations and hazards to which the women employees may be subjected to. When the petitioners assert that they are prepared to do the job and as long as the duties to be performed are not inherently incapable of being performed by women, total exclusion is unjustifiable. Borrowing the words and the idea expressed by Subramonian Poti (Ag.C.J.) in Rajamma's case, I need only say that the WPC No. 18140/2006 -32- right of women should not be denied on fanciful assumptions of what work the woman could do and could not do and that whether the work is of an arduous nature and therefore unsuitable for women, must be decided from the point of view of how women feel about it and how they would assess it. It is for the Electricity Board to evolve and introduce meaningful procedure so as to utilise as effectively as possible the service of women employees who may be appointed as Electricity Workers.
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 85 - Full Document
1   2 Next