Cannot deny job to married girl on compassionate grounds: Karnataka High Court

BENGALURU:  Even a married daughter of a deceased government employee can be considered for a compassionate appointment, the Karnataka High Court has ruled.

It held that excluding a married daughter on such grounds was illegal and unconstitutional. Allowing the petition filed by Bhuavaneshwari V Puranik on Tuesday, Justice M Nagaprasanna struck down the word “unmarried” in Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Rules, 1996, as it is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. He directed the state government to consider the  petitioner’s claim and pass an appropriate order within a month.

The judge noted that if the Rule was left as it was, it would create discrimination on the basis of gender.

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 too should make no difference, the judge said.

Observing that marriage does not determine the continuance of a relationship between parent and child, the judge said a married daughter does not cease to be part of the family and law cannot make an assumption that a married son alone continues to be part of the family.

Law cannot bestow too little on women: HC

The exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of expression of ‘family’ in the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, is illegal and unconstitutional. Hence, denying an appointment to a married daughter on compassionate grounds is violation of Article 15 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, sex, gender, the judge said.

Bhuavaneshwari V Puranik, resident of Marathahalli in Bengaluru, is the daughter of late Ashok Adiveppa Madivalar who was working as Secretary in the office of the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) at Kudachi village in Belagavi district.

The deceased government servant has a son and a daughter. While the son was unwilling to take up the job, the daughter wanted it. But she was denied on the ground that she was married.

She then moved the high court. The judge said when “nature bestows so much on women, the law cannot bestow too little.”

“The interpretation of law has always undergone a change with changing times. This case is a classic example of how law is anachronistic in terms of the rules,” the judge added.