We are in 2026. We ostentatiously talk about the glorifying women’s empowerment theme and how girls are making space in every sector. Yet, sachets of gender inequality are thrown over almost every aisle we stroll. What does a computer science internship have to do with lifting 20 kilograms? And why, in 2026, would an internship advertisement reportedly specify that it is meant for “all male students”?Those are the questions now swirling around Zepto after a social media post alleging that the quick-commerce company had circulated a campus hiring notice with an unusual mix of academic and physical requirements went viral.The controversy is not merely about a number on a recruitment poster. It raises a more uncomfortable question about the assumptions employers make when deciding who is “fit” for a job. And whether gender is being used as a convenient proxy for physical capability.
A CSE internship with a 20-kg condition
The controversy began after an X user, Priyanshu Priyank, claimed that Zepto had visited a campus to offer internships to computer science engineering students.According to the image shared by Priyank, the opportunity was open to male students pursuing BTech, BBA, BCA, and BCom (Hons). The three-month internship reportedly carried a monthly stipend of Rs 20,000.So far, so conventional. Then came the physical requirement.Under the “Skills Required” section, the purported posting stated that candidates should have the “ability to lift up to 20 kg” and be prepared to remain on their feet for 10 to 12 hours in a fast-paced environment.That single line transformed what might otherwise have been an ordinary campus recruitment notice into an internet talking point.Priyank captioned the post by questioning why a company hiring CSE students would expect them to meet what he described as “Hyrox level requirements.”The post reportedly crossed 41,000 views, drawing a torrent of reactions, ranging from disbelief and ridicule to accusations of sexism.
But is the requirement actually sexist?
This is where the controversy becomes more complicated.If the internship genuinely involved working inside a dark store, handling inventory, moving packages or supporting warehouse operations, a physical requirement may not, by itself, be unreasonable. Quick-commerce businesses depend on highly physical supply-chain operations, and employees may sometimes have to move stock manually.Several users made precisely this argument. One suggested that the position could actually be related to dark-store management, where employees may need to lift goods when other workers are unavailable.But that explanation creates another question: If the job genuinely requires physical labour, why is the eligibility apparently restricted to male students?Physical strength is not synonymous with gender. Nor is being male a guarantee that an applicant can safely lift 20 kg or tolerate 10-to-12-hour shifts.Conversely, being female does not automatically mean a candidate cannot meet those requirements.A more defensible recruitment approach would be to define the actual physical duties and assess every applicant against the same objective standard.That distinction matters.
The bigger problem may be the job description itself
There is another issue hiding underneath the gender debate: What exactly was the internship?A three-month opportunity offering Rs 20,000 a month to graduates or students across BTech, BBA, BCA, and BCom (Hons), while simultaneously requiring prolonged standing and manual lifting, sounds less like a conventional desk-based technology internship and more like an operations role.If that is the case, the academic qualifications themselves invite scrutiny.Why require specialised degrees if the core duties are primarily physical and operational? Why recruit CSE students for a role in which the ability to lift inventory appears to be listed alongside professional skills?Perhaps the answer lies in the hybrid nature of modern quick-commerce operations. Dark stores increasingly rely on technology, inventory systems, data, logistics, and operational management. A graduate may therefore be expected to straddle both digital and physical responsibilities.But if that is what the role entails, the job description needs to say so clearly.
And then there is the 10-to-12-hour shift question
The 20-kg requirement grabbed social media’s attention. Yet the more consequential line may have been the reference to standing for 10 to 12 hours.A physical requirement is one thing. Asking young interns to remain on their feet for an exceptionally long shift raises questions about workload, workplace conditions, and the distinction between an internship and regular operational employment.Internships are often sold to students as opportunities to learn, acquire industry exposure, and develop professional skills.If the principal demands of a role are prolonged standing, physical handling, and warehouse operations, students deserve transparency about that before applying.The issue is not whether physical work is inherently inferior. It is not.The issue is whether the title, qualifications, compensation, and actual duties of the role accurately match one another.
Could the viral notice be fake?
There is, however, a crucial caveat that should not be buried beneath the outrage.The authenticity of the circulated image has not been independently established. The social media post contains an alleged recruitment notice, but that does not automatically make it an official Zepto advertisement.Zepto had also not responded to the social media allegation at the time of reporting. That uncertainty is significant.In the age of viral screenshots, an image can acquire the authority of a verified document simply because thousands of people have reacted to it. But virality is not verification.Until the company confirms the notice, the allegations should therefore remain allegations.
The uncomfortable lesson for recruiters
Yet even if the poster eventually turns out to be genuine, the episode points to a broader problem in India’s hiring realm: the difference between a legitimate job requirement and a lazy hiring filter.If a role requires an employee to lift 20 kg, say so.If it requires standing for 10 hours, disclose it.If it involves warehouse operations rather than conventional software work, make that unmistakably clear.And if physical capability is essential, test for physical capability, not gender.That would make recruitment more transparent, more defensible, and, importantly, more merit-based.The controversy also serves as a reminder that companies operate under a different microscope when they recruit young people through campuses. Students are not simply job seekers; they are often encountering corporate recruitment systems for the first time. A confusing or seemingly discriminatory eligibility criterion can therefore shape their perception of an employer long before they ever enter the workplace.
The question Zepto must eventually answer
For now, the central question is not whether the internet has found another unusual job advertisement to mock.It is this: Was this actually a Zepto hiring notice, and if it was, why was gender specified when the physical requirement could have been applied equally to every candidate?There is nothing inherently discriminatory about requiring someone to perform a physically demanding task when that task is genuinely integral to the job.There is, however, a legitimate debate when employers appear to equate physical capability with being male.And that is why this controversy deserves more than memes and outrage.Because workplace equality is not achieved merely by putting women in boardrooms or celebrating women’s empowerment campaigns. It also requires employers to examine the assumptions hidden inside seemingly routine hiring decisions.
