Bengaluru-based startup founder says he stopped recruiting men from Bihar, UP, Rajasthan, MP; netizens divided over reason

A Bengaluru-based entrepreneur has triggered a debate on social media after announcing that his company would no longer hire male candidates from Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. Karthik SG, founder of A1 Sports World, said the decision followed what he described as an incident involving a former employee and came after what he called a "lengthy discussion and quarrel" within the company.

In an X post, Karthik listed the four states and said the company had decided to exclude male applicants from them. He added that a woman from Rajasthan already works at the company and claimed that she had fully supported the decision.

Also Read: Bengaluru-based startup founder says he stopped recruiting men from Bihar, UP, Rajasthan, MP; netizens divided over reason

Entrepreneur cites alleged misconduct by former employee

In a separate post, Karthik explained that the decision came roughly two weeks after the company dismissed an employee who, according to him, was from one of the four states.

He alleged that the former employee had behaved abusively towards female staff members despite receiving two warnings. Karthik further claimed that the employee had tried to force himself on one female employee.


"We work with quite young kids," Karthik wrote, stressing that he considered the safety of his employees and the children they work with more important than running the business.

He said A1 Sports World has 32 employees, including 14 women. According to Karthik, 20 employees are from outside the state where the company is based, including 12 from non-southern states. He also said the workforce includes employees from different religious backgrounds.

Karthik says he will stand by hiring decision

Karthik later reiterated that he intended to continue with the decision. He said the former employee was an MBA graduate whose resume and background had appeared clean during the hiring process.

According to the entrepreneur, the employee began displaying what Karthik described as abusive behaviour only after about two months at the company. He argued that conventional recruitment information had not indicated the alleged conduct.

"I’ll definitely stand by this decision," Karthik wrote.

He also questioned whether such behaviour could be identified through a resume or routine verification.

Also Read: Did government order banks to stock ATMs ahead of UPI charges? Here’s what PIB said

Social media users question state-wise hiring ban

The announcement drew mixed responses online. Some users challenged the decision to exclude male candidates based on their state of origin, arguing that employers should assess applicants individually. Others said they understood Karthik's stated concerns about protecting female employees and young people at the workplace.

One user criticised the policy and wrote, "Imagine being so bad at hiring that instead of screening individuals for competence and character, you blacklist entire states. And then use one employee as a certificate of approval. This post says far more about your hiring process than it does about UP, Rajasthan, Bihar or MP."

Responding to that comment, Karthik questioned whether abusive behaviour could be identified through application documents or police verification. "Do you think female abusers come on resume? Or does actual police background check work... ₹500 to a constable, even a sex offender will get a good report mate," he wrote.

Another user said the company's decision could prevent individual offenders from being hired again elsewhere while failing to address the conduct of the person allegedly responsible.

"I love the idea of casting aside almost 40% of the population just because of a few disgusting men, people don’t get to choose where they are born. I've been hired nationwide and faced behavioral issues, but that just improves my screening process for next time. Simply avoiding these men means they will just carry their toxic behavior to the next company they join. Only protecting your immediate team is like catching a thief in your store and just quietly kicking them out so they can rob the store next door, instead of calling the police. Women’s safety is the absolute priority, which is exactly why we need to take action against the individuals responsible instead of just banning their home state. Honestly, just banning entire groups of people feels incredibly irresponsible," the user commented.

A third user also objected to the policy, describing it as "extremely ignorant, unprofessional and bigoted towards fellow Indians." The user argued that candidates should be evaluated on competence and, when necessary, individual conduct rather than their place of origin.

"A person should be screened based on their competence and, if necessary, their character, but generalising entire states is madness. Some states may have a higher prevalence of certain issues, but blanket banning people from such huge and diverse populations is psychotic," the commenter wrote.

The same user said that adopting what they described as regional discrimination could ultimately result in similar treatment of the company.

The discussion around Karthik's posts has therefore focused on the tension between his stated concerns about workplace safety and criticism of a hiring policy based on the state of origin of male applicants.