ORDER :

1. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents on advance notice appeared.

2. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2019 passed in Application No. 5080/2019.

3. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner before this Court is a married daughter of late Shivarudraiah who was the Group ‘D’ employee serving in the office of Range Forest Office, Ramanagar Range. While in his service he died on 07.02.2016 and the married daughter has submitted an application for grant of appointment. Application has been rejected on the ground that the married daughter is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds Rules 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 3340/2020 and 1002/2021 decided on 28.05.2021 paragraph Nos. 8 to 23 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

“8. The undisputed facts makes it very clear that the respondent is the daughter of late Sri. Hanumantha Rao Kulkarni who expired while in service on 19.3.2010. She is a divorced daughter and her application was rejected for grant of compassionate appointment as the CCA Rules of 1996 does not include a married daughter for grant of compassionate appointment.

9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Karnataka and others vs. Smt. C.N. Apporva Shree and another, in W.P. No. 5409/2021 (S-KSAT), decided on 22.3.2021, while deciding a similar issue in respect of grant of compassionate appointment to a married daughter, has dismissed a similar petition filed by the State of Karnataka. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of the aforesaid judgment read as under:

“5. 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 herein-below:

At the outset, it requires to be noticed that Apex Court in the matter of C.B. Muthamma vs. Union of India, 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. It has been further held:

“6. At the first blush this rule is in defiance of Art. 16. If a married man has a right, a married woman, other thing being equal, stands on no worse footing. This misogynous posture is a hangover of the masculine culture of manacling the weaker sex forgetting how our struggle for national freedom was also a battle against woman’s thraldom. Freedom is indivisible, so is Justice. That our founding faith enshrined in Arts. 14 and 16 should have been tragically ignored vis-a-vis half of India’s humanity, viz. our women, is a sad reflection on the distance between Constitution in the book and Law in action. And if the Executive as the surrogate of Parliament, makes rules in the teeth of Part III, especially when high political office, even diplomatic assignment has been filed by women, the inference of die-hard allergy to gender parity is inevitable.”

6. In fact, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of R. Jayamma vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, ILR 1992 Kar. 3416 has held refusing compassionate appointment only on the ground that an applicant is married would be violative of Constitutional Guarantees. It is further held:

“8. Article 14 of our Constitution assures to all citizens equality before the law and legal protection of the law. Article 15 expressly prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

9. Though women have equal rights in law, tradition and social customs hinder Indian women in enjoying equal rights with men. With the change in family structure