Karnataka High Court: Country Spending Crores Of Rupees For Conducting Elections, Public Money Wasted Due To Lack Of Planning And Vision

The Karnataka High Court while expressing support to a pregnant woman aspiring for a Government job, rebuked the State for failing to arrange an Examination Centre for her.

While doing so, the Court also expressed angst at the amount of money spent by the State for elections and bye-elections due to a lack of planning and vision.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking direction to the Karnataka Public Service Commission to allow the Petitioner to appear for the main examination of Group-A posts at Kalaburagi due to her medical condition.

The Bench of Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed, "Our country is spending crores of rupees for conducting elections and bye-elections, if required. Due to lack of planning and vision, public money is frequently put to waste. But, here is a case, where State submits before this Court that it cannot spend money to conduct examination for a deserving candidate. The makers of the Constitution, considering the fact that women require special treatment, have envisaged under Part III of the Constitution certain privileges exclusively for women."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Skanda Kumar while the Respondent was represented by Advocate R.J. Bhusare.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner appeared for the preliminary examination and got eligibility to write the main examination but in the meantime, she became pregnant. Now, with the main examination coming up, it was urged that her health would be at risk in case the she takes up travel for writing examination.

On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent submitted that examinations will be conducted with strict security and under C.C. cameras surveillance for which due arrangements have been made. It was averred that in case the Petitioner intends to write the examination, she has to attend the allotted center and appear for the examination. The Counsel submitted that for the convenience of a single candidate, the Karnataka Public Service Commission cannot take up the hectic exercise of conducting the examination at a place near her.

Reasoning By Court

The Court stated that though employment is not a fundamental right, the right to livelihood is guaranteed under the Constitution. Noting that on becoming pregnant, except for begetting a child, the woman will have no other option, the Court observed that denial of opportunity is not justifiable.

"By Article 14 of the Constitution of India the State is prevented from denying equality before law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India empowers the State to make special provisions for women and children. Article 16 of the Constitution of India states that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 39 which is in Part IV of the Constitution of India envisages that the State shall direct its policy towards securing its citizens men and women equally, the right to an adequate means of livelihood. These salutary provisions cannot be over looked. Denial of opportunity to the petitioner certainly amount to violation of her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India," the Court observed.

It pointed out that the Petitioner is not requesting the Court to permit her to write examination at a place where there are no public offices, no electricity supply or where CC cameras cannot be arranged.

"Where there is necessity to arrange CC cameras, they are being arranged immediately to protect law and order and situations alike. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the State cannot deny taking responsibility to conduct examination to the petitioner at the city where she stays in the light of the justifiable grounds she projected," the Court observed.

Noting that in the present case, normal circumstances don't persist as the Petitioner is not in a position to travel, it issued the appropriate directions.

Cause Title: Mahalaxmi vs. The Karnataka Public Service Commission 2025:KHC-K:2168

Appearance:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Skanda Kumar, Advocate Bhuwaneshwari

Respondent- Advocate R.J. Bhusare.

Click here to read/ download Order