Migrant women can enjoy migrant status even after marriage with non-migrants

DB directs respondents to issue appointment order within four weeks

21/11/2024

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, directed respodents to issue appointment order of Seema Koul and Vishalni Koul.
While directing the issuance of order of appointment to the respodents, Division Bench after hearing Sr. AAG Monika Kohli for the UT, observed that this Court is of the opinion that order passed by learned Tribunal is just and proper. As per the definition of "Migrant" in SRO 412, it defines who a migrant is but thereafter has no provision for reversal of the status once granted. Thus, as per the said definition, a migrant was someone who was forced out of the Kashmir Valley after 1989. This factual aspect is not disputed by appellants herein. Thus, there is no cloud or doubt with regard to the migrant status that was granted to the respondents herein. DB further observed that one question of public important that arises before this Court is whether a women 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 said 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 herein, 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. 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. 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 learned 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. 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. Therefore, this argument is also rejected, DB said.
DB observed that in view of what has been argued and considered and held hereinabove by this court writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The appointment orders shall be given by the authority concerned to the respondents herein within a period of four weeks.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty