No Discrimination Between Unmarried And Married Daughter In Compassionate Appointments : Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka HC Verdict
story
Dismissing the state of Karnataka's challenge to the Karnataka High Court's affirmation that a married daughter is also entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds and there cannot be any discrimination between an unmarried daughter and a married daughter, the Supreme Court has declared, "We give our full imprimatur to the reasoning of the High Court".The bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Dismissing the state of Karnataka's challenge to the Karnataka High Court's affirmation that a married daughter is also entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds and there cannot be any discrimination between an unmarried daughter and a married daughter, the Supreme Court has declared, "We give our full imprimatur to the reasoning of the High Court".
The bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and M. M. Sundresh was hearing the state of Karnataka's SLP against the March decision of the Karnataka High Court Division Bench by which the High Court affirmed the 2017 order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, where the tribunal had set aside the 2015 endorsement by which the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected and a further direction was given by the tribunal to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds, if, she is otherwise eligible.
"We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and have analysed the impugned judgment. We give our full imprimatur to the reasoning of the High Court, more so, as even the rule in question relied upon by the petitioner to deny a married daughter a job on compassionate grounds while permitting it to a married son, has been quashed in the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Bhuvaneshwari V. Purani v. State of Karnataka - (2021) 1 AKR 444 [AIR Online 2020 Kar 2303]", asserted the bench of Justices Kaul and Sundresh.
In December, 2020, in Bhuvaneshwari's case, the Karnataka High Court held that excluding a married daughter from consideration for appointment on compassionate ground is unconstitutional. "If the marital status of a son does not make any difference in law to his entitlement for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the marital status of a daughter should make no difference, as the married daughter does not cease to be a part of the family and law cannot make an assumption that married sons alone continue to be the part of the family, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed while allowing a writ petition filed by a woman.
In the March judgment of the Karnataka High Court impugned in the instant SLP, the High Court recorded that Respondent is the daughter of one Smt.T.S.Nirmala Devi, who was working as an Assistant Teacher at Government Higher Primary School, Thuraganuru Village, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District. She died in harness on 05.09.2013. Her father had expired on 19.01.2012 and he was said to be unemployed. Respondent herein is the only daughter and legal heir of deceased Smt.T.S.Nirmala Devi. By the time her mother expired, she was married and on the demise of her mother, she filed an application before the second petitioner herein seeking appointment on compassionate ground in terms of Government Order dated 04.08.2014 contending inter alia that she is a graduate in Commerce and she may be given suitable appointment on compassionate ground and her application came to be rejected by endorsement dated 13.07.2015. Hence, she filed an application before the tribunal. Petitioners herein who were respondents before the tribunal on being notified, appeared and opposed the application. After considering the rival contentions, tribunal noticed that application which was filed by the respondent herein was well within time, has held that married daughter is also entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and there cannot be any discrimination between unmarried daughter and married daughter. By setting aside the impugned endorsement, petitioners herein were directed to consider the payer of applicants/respondents herein for giving her appointment on compassionate ground by specifying the time within which the said exercise should be undertaken namely, three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Hence, state was before the High Court by presenting the writ petition under which order of the tribunal is challenged.
"Having heard learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for petitioners, we are of the considered view that this petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold even without notice being issued for the reasons indicated hereinbelow: At the outset, it requires to be noticed that Apex Court in the matter of C.B.Muthamma v. Union of India reported in AIR 1979 SC 1868 has held that if the Executive as the surrogate of Parliament, makes rules in the teeth of part III of the Constitution and diametrically opposite to mandate of Articles 14 and 16, it would definitely be allergy to gender parity…In fact, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of R.Jayamma vs Karnataka Electricity Board reported in ILR 1992 KAR 3416 has held refusing compassionate appointment only on the ground that an applicant is married would be violative of Constitutional Guarantees…Following these two decisions, tribunal in Application No.9763/2015 disposed of on 27.10.2017 (Annexure-A8) had extended similar relief to applicant therein and has directed the State to consider the claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate ground, if she is otherwise eligible. It is these judgments which have been followed by the tribunal while passing the impugned order", observed the High Court in its March judgment.
"Though Sri Kiran Kumar (High Court Government Pleader) would vehemently contend that Rules having not been challenged by the applicant or same having not been quashed, petitioners are left with no other option except to examine the claim of an applicant for being appointed on compassionate ground within the frame work of Rules, is an argument which requires to be brushed aside for the simple reason that learned Single Judge in the case of BHUVANESHWARI V. PURANI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2021(1) AKR 444 [AIROnline 2020 Kar 2303] has quashed the said Rule 3 of the Rules which has been pressed into service by learned High Court Government Pleader in the present petition. In other words, said Rule is no more available in the statute book. In fact, the Government seems to have also been alive to this factual situation and to set right the anomaly or discrimination that was meted out to a married daughter has taken proactive step by brining in amendment to Rule 3 which is said to be in pipeline for being implemented. In this factual scenario, the contention of learned High Court Government Pleader would not stand the test of law. Hence, we reject this petition by affirming the order of the tribunal", ruled the High Court.
Case Title: The State Of Karnataka & Ors. v. C.N. Apporva Shree & Anr.
Click Here To Read/Download Order