The Writ Petition was filed by a married daughter of a deceased Government employee who got excluded from seeking the benefit of the Compassionate appointment on the ground that she is married. The petitioner claimed this as being violative of Articles 14, 15, & 16 of the Indian Constitution.
The court has said that the provisions contained in the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 regarding the appointment on compassionate ground to the government Servants in the State of Karnataka, is discriminatory in nature as it is creating division based on gender where a son is granted appointment without any qualification but the daughter is denied from it just because she is married.
The Court held,
“the son continues to be the son both before and after marriage and the daughter also should continue to daughter both before and after marriage. Marriage does not sever the relationship of daughter and parent.”
In this case, Ashok Adiveppa Madivalar was working as secretary of AMPC, Kuduchi village, died in harness leaving behind his wife, one daughter, and son. The son denied applying for the appointment on Compassionate Ground as he was not interested in the Job whereas the Daughter was married. chose to apply for the same but was denied by the authorities on the ground that a married daughter is not eligible to take the benefit of Compassionate appointment as per the rules.
As per the interpretation given by the High Court of Karnataka, even if in its remote impression, a rule gives that its consequence can result in the violation of Articles 14 and 15 will have to be held unconstitutional. In the present case also, the word, “marriage” has become the sole reason for the denial of appointment to the daughter, creates discrimination on the basis of Gender.
The Court ruled,
“if the marital status of the son does not make any difference in law to his entitlement for seeking appointment on compassionate ground, 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 the assumption that married sons alone continue to be the part of the family. Therefore, the rule becomes violative of Article 14 and 15 and will have to be struck down as unconstitutional.”
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgement from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also contribute blog, articles, story tip, judgment and many more and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
