IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Priyanka R. Patil, D/O Late Subedar Ramesh – Petitioner
Versus
Kendriya Sainik Board Ministry Of Defence Kendriya Sainik Board West Block – Iv, Wing – Vii Rk Puram New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.19722 OF 2021 (GM – RES)
Decided On : 02-01-2023
The court referred to Article 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law, equal protection of the laws, and equality of opportunity in matters of employment under the State. It also cited previous judgments that interpreted these constitutional provisions and struck down discriminatory rules. The court emphasized the need for gender-neutral policies and the recognition of women's rights in the armed forces.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a married daughter of an ex-serviceman, was denied an identity card under the guideline that only unmarried daughters are eligible. She challenged the guideline as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court analyzed the guideline and its impact on gender equality. It referred to previous judgments that struck down similar discriminatory rules. The court held that the guideline portrayed gender bias and violated the constitutional principles of equality. It struck down the guideline and directed the issuance of an identity card to the petitioner, as well as consideration for recruitment under the ex-servicemen quota.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the guideline and its impact on gender equality. It referred to previous judgments that struck down similar discriminatory rules. The court held that the guideline portrayed gender bias and violated the constitutional principles of equality.
Ratio Decidendi: The guideline that denied an identity card to married daughters of ex-servicemen was struck down as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court held that marriage should not change the status of a daughter and that gender-neutral policies should be adopted.
Result: The court directed the issuance of an identity card to the petitioner and ordered the consideration of her case under the ex-servicemen quota for the post of Assistant Professor.
ORDER :
WHAT FALLS FOR CONSIDERATION IS, THE TENABILITY OF A POLICY IN THE FORM OF A GUIDELINE, THAT THWARTS GENDER EQUALITY.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts germane for consideration of the lis are as follows:
The petitioner is the second daughter of one Subedar Ramesh Khandappa Police Patil. Khandappa Police Patil joins the services of the Indian Army on 25.06.1979 and was inducted into the Madras Engineering Group. In the year 2001, the father of the petitioner was deployed in an operation named Parakram at Gaziwala, Punjab, while performing his assigned task of mine clearance and handling with the Madras Engineering Group, one H.P.O. – 2 Mine gets exploded. The father of the petitioner sustained grave injuries due to the blast and later succumbed to the injuries, by then he had put in 22 years of service. Later, the father of the petitioner was categorized as a servicemen “killed in action” and was therefore, considered as “WARD OF BATTLE CASUALTY”. Father of the petitioner was survived by the mother of the petitioner, the first daughter and petitioner, the second. At the time of death of the father of the petitioner in the year 2001, the petitioner was 10 years old and was studying in the 4th standard. The petitioner completes her graduation in the year 2015 and became eligible to be considered for appointment in the State Government in any recruitment process that would ensue.
3. On 22.02.2019 the Directorate of Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement, Government of Karnataka issues a compendium of all welfare schemes pertaining to veterans, widows and disabled soldiers and their wards. As per several such welfare schemes, their wards were entitled to 10% of reservation in any recruitment process in all the departments of the Government. A notification comes to be issued by the Government of Karnataka on 26.08.2021 seeking to fill up the vacant posts of Assistant Professors in the Government First Grade colleges across the State. The recruitment notification is issued in terms of the Rules namely, the Karnataka Education Department Services (Collegiate Education Department) (Recruitment of Assistant Professor) (Special) Rules, 2020. The notification did provide for reservation to the ex-servicemen or the ward of the ex-servicemen.
4. The petitioner intending to apply for the post of Assistant Professor, as she was the ward of an ex-serviceman and finding herself eligible in all other criteria, approaches the 4th respondent/The Deputy Director of Zilla Sainik Welfare Board for issuance of a dependant identity card to demonstrate that the petitioner is the ward of an ex-serviceman. The 4th respondent declines to issue an identity card to the petitioner quoting guidelines for issuance of dependant identity cards which depicts that identity cards cannot be issued to married daughters. Therefore, loses hope of an opportunity of participation in the selection process and immediately knocks at the doors of this Court, calling in question the offending guideline and a consequential mandamus to consider her case under the ex-servicemen quota. This Court, entertaining the petition, directed the application of the petitioner to be processed in terms of its order dated 08.11.2022.
5. Heard, Sri Raghav Parthasarathy, learned counsel for Sri.Vivek.R., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.H.Shanthi Bhusan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.B.V.Krishna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, Smt.A.H.Sunitha Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri.N.K.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the guideline permits issuance of a card both to the daughter or a son of an ex-servicemen, the rider is, that it is issued only till the daught
Exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, affirming that marriage does not sever familial ties for employment eligibility.
The exclusion of married daughters from the definition of 'dependent' in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.
Compassionate appointments cannot discriminate based on gender; excluding married daughters violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 16.
Marriage does not bring about a severance of relationship between a father and mother and their son or between parents and their daughter. Marriage cannot be regarded as a justifiable ground to defin....
Married daughters are entitled to compassionate appointment on par with sons, as marital status does not negate their familial ties or dependency.
Exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment violates constitutional rights to equality and non-discrimination; eligibility should be based on dependency, not marital status.
Point of law: undisputedly the petitioner is the elder daughter of the deceased and she along with her husband is staying at the place of the deceased even after her marriage. In the society, there a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.