Smt. Sneha T vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1299 Kant

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

       WRIT PETITION No.1181/2021 (S - RES)

BETWEEN

SMT. SNEHA T.,
D/O SRI. TYAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O. BALLALA SAMUDRA,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 597.
                                     ... PETITIONER

[BY SRI ANIL KUMAR J.M., ADVOCATE
   (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
      DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
      AND PANCHAYATH RAJ,
      M.S. BUILDING,
      BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.    THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
      ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
      CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
      CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

3.    THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                              2



        TALUK PANCHAYATH,
        HOSADURGA TALUK,
        HOSADURGA,
        CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.

4.      THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
        BALLALA SAMUDRA GRAM PANCHAYATH,
        BALLALA SAMUDRA,
        HOSADURGA TALUK,
        CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 597.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED
09.10.2020 ISSUED BY R-3 ANNEXURE-F DECLARING THE
SAME AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for

a declaration that the Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka

Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate

Grounds) Rules, 1996 is being violative of Articles 14,

15, and 16 of the Constitution of India and has sought

for a consequent direction to consider her case for

appointment on compassionate grounds, which is now

declined by respondent No.3 - the Executive Officer

on the score that the petitioner is a married daughter.

2. This Court in the case of

SMT. BHUVANESHWARI V.PURANIK VS. THE STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.17788/2018 dated

15.12.2020, has struck down the Rules that are challenged

in this petition as unconstitutional. While doing so, has

held as follows:

"15.4. An analysis of the judgments relied on by the petitioner and the respondent-

State as extracted hereinabove would lead to two conclusions. One, dependency is the key determinative factor for grant of compassionate appointment and the other being a Rule that brooks discrimination on the basis of gender is not to remain in the statute book as it would violate Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, Article 15 in particular, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, sex, gender. Even the remotest impression a Rule gives that its consequence is resulting in any of the ingredients of Articles 14 and 15 being

violated, such a Rule will have to be held to be ultravires the Constitution.

15.5. The Rule that is called in question and has fallen for interpretation, without a shadow of a doubt is discriminatory as the words "unmarried" permeates through the entire fabric of Rule 2 and 3 as extracted hereinabove to deny appointment to a married daughter. If the Rule is left as it is, in view of my preceding analysis, 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. Therefore, the Rule which becomes violative of Articles 14, 15 on its interpretation will have to be struck down as unconstitutional as excluding the daughters purely on the basis of marriage will constitute an impermissible discrimination which is invidious and be

violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India."

3. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and a

direction is issued to the respondents to consider the

case of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate grounds, if she is otherwise eligible. If

considered to be appointed, the petitioner shall give

an affidavit of undertaking that she will take care of

her mother and her needs during her life time.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SJK