“Discriminates Based On Sex”: Madras High Court Strikes Down Govt Order Reserving Compassionate Appointment In Noon Meal Schemes For Women

Noting that the GO was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that it not only affected the male children of female employees but put the female employees a par below to that of their male counterparts.

“The object of providing compassionate appointment is to provide succor to the family which is in penury. Just because the woman employee has left only a male legal heir/son, then, compassionate appointment cannot be deprived. Now, essentially, the G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 18.08.2021 discriminates and therefore, will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the same is declared to be illegal to the extent it totally denies the benefit to the male employees,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a petition filed by G Karthikeyan challenging the Government Order issued by the Social Welfare and Women Rights Department dated August 18, 2021, restricting compassionate appointment in the Noon Meal Scheme to women alone. Karthikeyan's mother died in harness while serving as a Cook at Government Higher Secondary School, Kelaiyur. Since the family was in indigent circumstances and immediate penury, Karthikeyan applied for an appointment on compassionate grounds but the same was rejected. Thus, he approached the court against the GO and sought an appointment.

The state, however, informed the court that the GO was already upheld by the Court and thus the present challenge could not be entertained.

The petitioner submitted that in other similar cases, even while upholding the GO, the court had directed the authorities to consider the case and forward the application to the District Collector. He thus requested the court to pass similar orders in the present case.

The court noted that in the previous cases, the validity of the GO was not challenged the the prayer was merely to provide compassionate appointment and thus it could not be said that the validity of the GO was upheld.

Regarding the scheme, the court noted that while there was no quarrel over reserving the post to women if the employee dies in harness, the employment should be included within the scheme of compassionate appointment. Though the state reasoned that since the post was reserved for women, the compassionate appointment was also reserved for women, the court found this reasoning to be discriminating on the basis of sex.

The court noted that if 100% of the vacancies in a particular department are reserved for women, the applications for compassionate appointment could be forwarded to the District Collector or to the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department to be considered under the general pool for being appointed in other suitable posts.

The court thus declared the GO to be illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to the extent it excluded male heirs. The court also quashed the rejection order and directed the authorities to forward Karthikeyan's application to the District Collector for employment in any other suitable posts.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs.Aananthi.T

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.C.Jayaprakash, Government Advocate, Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, Government Advocate

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 276

Case Title: G Karthikeyan v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: W.P.No.28231 of 2023