TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delhi High Court: Age Discrimination in Employment Criteria Ruled Unconstitutional</h1> <h3>The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus Shashi and Ors.</h3> The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus Shashi and Ors. - TMI Issues involved: Age discrimination in employment based on short-listing criteria.Summary:The judgment by the Delhi High Court dealt with the issue of age discrimination in employment based on short-listing criteria. The Petitioner had introduced an age criterion which led to the exclusion of applicants falling below a certain age range. The Court found that this discriminatory practice was unreasonable and violated the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution.The Court emphasized that under Article 14 of the Constitution, equal treatment and protection of laws should be provided to all individuals. While reasonable classification is permissible, discrimination solely based on age is not justified. The Petitioner's action of limiting the application to a specific age group was deemed arbitrary and against the spirit of equality.The Court rejected the Petitioner's justifications for age discrimination, stating that age is not a relevant factor in determining merit or competence. The judgment highlighted that age discrimination without a rational basis is unacceptable under the constitutional framework.Referring to legal precedents, the Court distinguished cases where reasonable criteria were set for selection based on qualifications or experience. In the present case, selecting candidates solely based on age disregarded other important factors contributing to merit and competence.Ultimately, the Court concluded that the age discrimination by the Petitioner was arbitrary and contrary to the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
TaxTMI 