Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 20: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Atul Sreedharan and Justice Mohd Yousaf Wani, while dismissing the appeal of the UT, has directed respondents to issue appointment order of Seema Koul and Vishalni Koul.
Follow the Daily Excelsior channel on WhatsApp
After hearing Senior AAG Monika Kohli for the UT, the DB observed, “this court is of the opinion that order passed by Tribunal is just and proper. As per the definition in SRO 412, a migrant was someone who was forced out of the Kashmir Valley after 1989. This factual aspect is not disputed by appellants. Thus, there is no cloud or doubt with regard to the migrant status that was granted to the respondents”.
DB further observed, “one question of public important that arises before this court is whether a woman who has been given a migrant status on account of the suffering endured by her and her family on account of which they were forced to leave their home and hearth in the Kashmir Valley on account of disturbance that was rampant in the year 1989 onwards, could be discriminated and would stand to lose the status only on account of fact that she had got married to a non-migrant”.
“Holding thus would be going against the nature of human beings. Respondents, who are ladies and on account of no fault of theirs, had to leave their place of original residence in Kashmir valley, cannot be expected to remain unmarried only to secure a job in the Kashmir valley as a migrant. It is also reasonable to presume that because of the exodus, not every migrant woman would be in a position to find a match who himself was a migrant”, the DB further said.
“In such a situation, to hold that the woman would lose her status as a migrant only because she, out of the natural urge of forming a family, had to marry a non-migrant on account of existing circumstances, would be grossly discriminatory and militates against the very concept of justice. This discrimination becomes even more brazen where a male migrant continues to remain a migrant notwithstanding the fact that he has married a non-migrant”, the DB said, adding “such a situation has arisen only on account of patriarchy that prevails in the human race. However, in matters relating to employment under the State/UT, such discrimination cannot be countenanced”.
“As regards, the contention put forth by counsel for the appellant that there was non-disclosure/concealment of the fact that the respondents were married, is of no consequence. Undisputedly, the advertisement notice does not provide for cancellation of the candidature on account of non-disclosure or improper disclosure of facts/marital status”, the DB said, adding “further, the appellants have not been able to show how material injustice has been taken place to those who could not get selected otherwise on account of such non-disclosure”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
