ORDER

1. Present intra-Court appeal preferred u/S. 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails final order dated 25.11.2020 passed in W.P. No.15382/2020 (S) by learned Single Judge while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India allowing petition in question by which the challenge was made to an order dated 9.9.2020 passed by respondent No.2/appellant No.2 rejecting claim for compassionate appointment of respondent (petitioner in wp) who happened to be married daughter of deceased Government servant who died in harness on the post of ASI (M).

2. The order passed by learned Single Judge while allowing the petition directing for reconsideration of case of respondent/petitioner is based on the Larger Bench decision rendered by Bench comprising three Judges in case of Meenakshi Dubey v. M.P. Poorva Kschetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd, on 2.3.2020 in W.A. No.756/2019, [Reported in 2020(1) JLJ 335] where the Larger Bench held thus :

“17. We are not oblivious of the settled legal position that compassionate appointment is an exception to general rule. As per the policy of compassionate appointment, State has already decided to consider claims of the married daughters (Clause 2.4) for compassionate appointment but such consideration was confined to such daughters who have no brothers. After the death of Government servant, it is open to the spouse to decide and opt whether his/her son or daughter is best suited for compassionate appointment and take responsibilities towards family which were being discharged by the deceased Government servant earlier.

The offending clause which restricts such consideration only for such married daughter is subject matter of consideration and examination. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Budhan Choudhry (supra), held that substantive law, procedural law or even an action can be interfered with if it does not pass the “litmus test” laid down in the said case. Hence, in a case of this nature, adjudication is not required regarding creation of right of married woman, indeed, judicial review is focused against curtailment of claim of such married woman when deceased Government servant died leaving behind son/s

18. The matter may be viewed from another angle. Human rights and fundamental freedom have been reiterated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and have mutual reinforcement. All forms of discrimination on grounds of gender is violative of fundamental freedoms and human rights. Vienna Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (for short ‘CEDAW’) was ratified by the UNO on 18.12.1979. The Government of India who was an active participant to CEDAW ratified it on 19.6.1993 and acceded to CEDAW on 8.8.1993 with reservation on Articles 5(e), 16(1), 16(2) and 29 thereof. The Preamble of CEDAW reiterates that discrimination against women violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity; is an obstacle to the participation on equal terms with men in the political, social, economic and cultural life of their country; hampers the growth of the personality from society and family and makes it more difficult for the full development of potentialities of women in the service of their countries and of humanity. Article 1 defines discrimination against women to mean - “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose on impairing or nullifying the recognized enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field”. Article 2(b) makes it obligatory for the State parties while condemning discrimination against women in all its forms, to pursue, by ap