Compassionate appointments cannot discriminate based on gender; excluding married daughters violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 16.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

I) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the endorsement issued by Respondent dated 24/04/2023 vide ANNEXURE-H in No.SANKHYE/KAKARASA/HOVI/SIBBANDI/ANE/528/2023

II) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment as per ANNEXURE - G dated 31/01/2023 in the interest of justice and equity.

III) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as court deems fit to meet the ends of justice.

2. The petitioner is the daughter of an employee of the Corporation, who dies in harness. By the time the death of the employee happens, the petitioner had married. Therefore the claim of the petitioner for seeking appointment of compassionate grounds comes to be rejected on the score that the petitioner is the married daughter.

3. In identical circumstances, this Court considering the entire spectrum of the law in W.P.No.107635/2023 disposed off on 07.02.2025 has held as follows:

“3. The facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner on the death of the sole breadwinner of the family, who died in harness, on 09.04.2016, an application is made seeking appointment on compassionate grounds by the wife in favour of the daughter/the present petitioner. The application comes to be rejected on the sole score that the petitioner is a married daughter and therefore, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered. It is this action that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri M.S. Hallikeri would submit that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik vs. The State of Karnataka, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Others , ILR 2021 KAR 5256. Pursuant to which, the Corporation is also amended its circular and issued a fresh circular entitling the married daughters also to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground subject to certain conditions.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent Sri Prashant Hosmani would submit that her case would be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court but would submit that the petitioner will have to prove dependency and file an affidavit to the effect that she would take care of the mother throughout her lifetime.

6. With this being in place, there would be no impediment to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the extant guidelines/circular as also the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik.

7. This Court in Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik has held as follows:

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. In furtherance of the aforesaid submissions, the point that arises for my consideration is:

“Whether Rule 2(1) (a) (i), Rule 2(1) (b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 are ultra vires the Constitution for it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India?”

10. OBJECT OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT:

10.1. It is by now a well settled principle that object of compassionate appointment is to help the family tied over the crisis that befalls them on the death of the sole breadwinner of the family. It is given, in a given circumstance, so that the family will not be put to jeopandy by being driven to impecuniosities and condemned by penury. It is for this reason the emphasis on appointment on compassionate grounds is immediacy of appointment. This is the principle that is laid down in plethora of judgments of the Apex Court interpreting the need, benefit and its limitation