BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court held that 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 appointment to married daughter on compassionate ground is violation of Article 15 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, sex, gender, the court said.
Allowing the petition filed by Bhuavaneshwari V Puranik, 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 and directed the state government to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and pass the appropriate order, within a month.
Bhuavaneshwari V Puranik, resident of Marathahalli in city, is the daughter of late Ashok Adiveppa Madivalar who was working as Secretary in the office of the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) at Kuduchi village in Belgaum district.
The deceased government servant has a son and a daughter, the son declines the appointment on the ground that he is not willing and daughter is denied on the ground that she is married, by rejecting her representation for appointment on compassionate ground in 2016. She moved the high court against this.
The judge noted that if the Rule is left as it is, it would create a 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 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.
Observing that "nature bestows so much on women; the law cannot bestow too little", the judge said that son continues to be a son 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.
"The interpretation of law has always undergone a change with changing times. This case is a classic example of law being anachronistic as in terms of the Rules. If the offending provision is left as it is, it would be putting the clock back from where the law has progressed over the years", the judge said.