LI Network
Published on: 16 August 2023 at 13:42 IST
The Rajasthan High Court has labeled the recruitment criteria for the Forest Guard position as arbitrary, outrageous, and disrespectful to the dignity of women. Under this criterion, female applicants are required to undergo a chest measurement test, a requirement that the court deems scientifically baseless and immodest.
The bench, led by Justice Dinesh Mehta, emphasized that the size of a woman’s chest holds no relevance when determining her physical strength. The court expressed that the chest measurement standard not only lacks scientific validity but is also an intrusion upon a woman’s privacy and autonomy.
“The imposition of chest measurement as a criterion, particularly for women candidates, is not only arbitrary but also deeply offensive. It violates a woman’s dignity and her constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution,” stated the court.
The court further argued that the chest measurement criterion does not accurately reflect a woman’s physical fitness or lung capacity. Even if there were a correlation, the court contends that such a measurement encroaches on a woman’s privacy and disrupts her dignity, autonomy, and mental well-being.
The court criticized the administrative authorities for their lack of sensitivity in formulating such a policy and directed its ruling to be conveyed to the Chief Secretary, Secretary of the Forest Department, and the Secretary of the Department of Personnel of the Rajasthan Government. These departments were urged to reconsider or review the criterion in question.
To address the issue of lung capacity assessment, the court suggested seeking expert opinions to explore alternative methods that avoid unnecessary humiliation of women candidates.
This verdict came in response to a writ petition filed by three candidates who had taken the Forest Guard Exam. These candidates were rejected based on the chest measurement criteria despite passing the Physical Efficiency/Standard Test. The court dismissed their plea, as the recruitment process had concluded and disturbing it was deemed inappropriate.
However, the court expressed strong dismay regarding the standards set by the respondents for evaluating the physical fitness of female candidates. It stated that deliberation was necessary on the criteria established by the recruiting body, as the qualification requirements were based on erroneous assumptions.
The court criticized the practice of using minimum chest circumference as a measure of physical fitness, describing it as humiliating and derogatory to women. It noted that modern tests or alternative methods were available to determine lung capacity without resorting to this measure. The court concluded that the chest measurement criterion lacked logical justification, especially for female candidates.
