Married daughters too are eligible for compassionate appointment like married sons: Karnataka HC
[ad_1]
Court strikes down phrase ‘unmarried’ from guidelines to hunt compassionate appointment by members of the family of govt. staff
The Karnataka High Court has declared as unconstitutional the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 that excludes ‘married daughters’ from the ambit of eligible members of the family of a authorities worker to safe appointment on compassionate grounds.
The court docket struck down the phrase ‘unmarried’ from the Rules 2(1)(a)(i), 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the 1996 Rules whereas holding that denying appointment on compassionate grounds to ‘unmarried daughters’ is violative of Article 14 (equality earlier than legislation) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of faith, race, caste, intercourse or fatherland) of the structure.
“If the marital status of a son does not make any difference in law to his entitlement for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the marital status of a daughter should make no difference, as the married daughter does not cease to be a part of the family and law cannot make an assumption that married sons alone continue to be the part of the family,” the court docket held.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the decision whereas permitting a petition filed by 31-year-old Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik, daughter of Ashok Adiveppa Madivalar, who was working as Secretary of Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee of Kuduchi village of Belagavi district earlier than his dying in May 2016.
The petitioner, who was already married earlier than the dying of her father, had sought appointment beneath compassionate floor as her brother didn’t decide for the appointment. However, the federal government rejected her illustration primarily based on the provisions of the 1996 which states that solely the ‘unmarried daughters’ are eligible to hunt appointment on compassionate floor aside from the partner and the son of the deceased public servant.
Giving an illustration on how the exclusion of ‘married daughter’ defeated the aim of giving compassionate appointments, Justice Nagaprasanna identified that in a case the place the deceased authorities servant had two daughters, if each of whom had been married, there could possibly be no appointment given to such a household, and thereby defeating the very object of compassionate appointment.
“Marriage does not determine the continuance of the relationship of a child with the parent, whether son or a daughter. Son continues to be a son both before and after marriage and a daughter also should continue to be a daughter both before and after marriage. This relationship does not get effaced by the fact of marriage, as marriage does not severe the relationship of the daughter with the parent. These relationships are neither governed nor defined by marital status. This notion on which the Rule is framed cannot answer the tests of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution,” the court docket noticed.
The Rules, the court docket stated, insofar because it created division of the identical object of appointment on the premise of gender by granting appointment to a son with none qualification and denying the identical to a daughter with the qualification of “marriage” couldn’t however be held to be discriminatory.
“It should be remembered that nature bestows so much on women; the law cannot bestow too little,” the choose noticed.
You have reached your restrict for free articles this month.
