The exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 15. Dependency, not marital status, is the primary criterion for determining eligibility for such appointments; rules creating gender-based discrimination in public service are void.

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 04.02.2026 BEARING NO.KAKOAMA/ADALITA/35/2021-22/411 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2. AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A dated 04.02.2026 bearing No. KAKOAMA/ADALITA/35/2021-22/411 issued by the Respondent No.2.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the application of the Petitioner in Annexure-C dated 19.01.2021.

iii) Pass any order, or direction as deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is the daughter of late Anthony Das, who was working as a Second Division Assistant in the 2nd respondent – Board. Upon his demise during service on 28.05.2019, the petitioner's application seeking appointment on Compassionate Grounds was rejected by the 2nd respondent–Board vide endorsement dated 05.02.2022 which was assailed by the petitioner in W.P.No.6770/2022 whereby this Court quashed the endorsement impugned therein and directed reconsideration of the application of the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid final order dated 18.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6770/2022, the petitioner submitted one more representation dated 13.10.2025 seeking appointment on Compassionate Grounds, which came to be rejected by the 2nd respondent vide impugned endorsement dated 04.02.2026, which is assailed in the present petition.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited by attention to the impugned endorsement at Annexure – A dated 04.02.2026 in order to contend that the only reason / ground for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, is by holding that the petitioner was married as on the date of submission of the application on 19.01.2021 and in the light of the definition and in the light of Rule 3 (2)(i)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, the application of the petitioner was liable to be rejected.

5. In this context, he would invite my attention to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – W.P.No.17788/2018 dated 15.12.2020, whereby the expression ‘unmarried daughter’, contained in Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1996 was struck down by this Court, pursuant to which, the said Rules were amended so as to include both married and unmarried daughters for the purpose of seeking compassionate appointment. It is therefore submitted that the impugned endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent deserves to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submit that there is no me