Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the married daughter of a deceased stenographer who had been in service at the District Court, Gadchiroli. Upon the father's death in harness, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds, 2019. Her application was rejected solely on the ground that she was a married daughter, relying on Clauses 4(I)(c) and (e) of the Guidelines which restrict eligibility to unmarried daughters, with an exception for a married daughter only if she is the sole offspring and the family is dependent solely on her. The petitioner challenged these clauses as violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16(2) of the Constitution, arguing that the classification between married and unmarried daughters is arbitrary and discriminatory. The respondent defended the clauses as a reasonable classification based on dependency, contending that a married daughter is presumed to be part of her marital family and not dependent on her deceased father. The court examined the provisions and noted that Clause 4(I) defines dependent family member to include unmarried, divorced, widowed, or deserted daughters, while a married daughter is included only in limited circumstances. Relying on recent Supreme Court decisions in Sayara Khatoon v. State of Bihar and Kulsum Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son based on marriage is per se unconstitutional and that a presumption of severing ties with the parental family cannot be sustained, the court concluded that the impugned clauses are irrational and violative of the guarantee of equality. The classification based solely on marital status was found to be without any reasonable nexus to the object of compassionate appointment, which is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee. The court struck down Clauses 4(I)(c) and (e) as unconstitutional and directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application afresh without reference to those clauses. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality and Non-Discrimination - Compassionate Appointment - Exclusion of Married Daughter - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 15, 16(2); Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds, 2019, Clauses 4(I)(c) and (e) - The petitioner, a married daughter of a deceased government employee, challenged the clauses that disqualified married daughters from compassionate appointment unless she was the sole offspring and the family was solely dependent on her. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents including Sayara Khatoon v. State of Bihar and Kulsum Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, held that classification based solely on marital status is arbitrary, irrational, and discriminatory, violating the fundamental right to equality and non-discrimination. Held, the impugned clauses are unconstitutional and struck down; the respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment without regard to the invalid clauses (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Clauses 4(I)(c) and (e) of the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds, 2019, which exclude married daughters from compassionate appointment, are unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, and 16(2) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Clauses 4(I)(c) and (e) of the Bombay High Court Revised Guidelines for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds, 2019 declared unconstitutional and struck down. Respondent directed to consider petitioner's application for compassionate appointment.
Law Points
- compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely on ground of marriage
- classification based on marital status is discriminatory
- Articles 14
- 15
- 16(2) of Constitution guarantee equality
- married daughter is entitled to be considered as dependent family member
