BALVINDER KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Smt. Balwinder Kaur was commissioned in the Military Nursing Services (in short MNS) as Lieutenant on 1 June 1988. She was on probation for a period of two years. During this probation period she got married to one Capt. Y.K. Joseph on 31st December, 1988. Her services were terminated on the "marriage ground" vide order dated 23rd October, 1989. It is against this termination that the present writ petition was filed challenging the impugned order, inter alia, being discriminatory on account of sex prejudice.

(2.) The respondent in its counter affidavit did not deny the factum of termination of the services of the petitioner on "marriage ground". Respondent, however, took the plea that since the petitioner got married within two years of her commissioning in the MNS, the same was in violation of Clause 'A' of Criteria dated 6th March, 1987. The said circular lays down the criteria according to which an Officer who marries during probation period will not be granted retention. The petitioner was well aware of this circular dated 6th March, 1987 whereby the criteria was laid down. She however in violation of the same got married during the period of probation. Hence, her services were terminated. There is no question of any violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R.K. Singh for the petitioner and Mr. E.X. Joseph, Senior Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Joseph fairly conceded that so far as the blanket ban on marriage of women in MNS was concerned that stood withdrawn by the respondent. The ban on marriage of women officers had to be withdrawn because of the pronouncements of various High Courts as well as of the Apex Court against such ban. He, however, tried to draw distinction between those cases of total ban on marriage and the present case where marriage is banned only during probation period. Explaining the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Miss C.B. Muthamma, I.F.S. Vs. Union of India & ors. (1979) 4 SCC 260(1) as well as in case of Bombay Labour Union Representing the Workman of Messrs International Franchises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Messrs International Franchises Pvt. Ltd. (1966) 2 SCR 493 (2). Mr. Joseph contended that in both the above quoted cases, the Apex Court was concerned with a blanket ban being imposed by the employer on the marriage of a woman employee. It was in those circumstances the Court opined that that was no good and convincing reason why such a rule should continue. Such a rule has no justification, and therefore, ordered to be abrogated. Supreme Court also ruled that sex discriminatio in service rule would be unconstitutional unless justified by the peculiarities and nature of the employment. The rules making marriage of a woman employee and her domestic imvolvement a ground for disentitlement held was unconstitutional But according to the respondent, the petitioner being a probationer could not have got married. Because during the probationery period a married woman tends to take maternity leave and thus the period of probation get reduced considerably. The respondent would not have the opportunity to judge her performance properly because of reduced probationery period. It was in this background that the cirdular dated 6th March, 1987 was issued laying down the criteria for grant of retention/further retention in service after marriage of women officers.