Daughters Not Excluded for Compassionate Govt Jobs, Says SC
The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by a woman, a married daughter of a deceased dealer, who challenged an order of the High Court that rejected her claim for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds.
New Delhi: Holding that married daughters cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said their omission from the definition of “family” is manifestly arbitrary, unjustified, and constitutionally untenable.
A two-judge Supreme Court bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made the observation while setting aside an order of the Allahabad High Court that held the definition of "family" does not include a married daughter for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by a woman, a married daughter of a deceased dealer, who challenged an order of the High Court that rejected her claim for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds.
The woman challenged a 2019 government order that excluded married daughters from the definition of “family”.
The top court said the exclusion of a married daughter from the definition cannot be sustained, as the object of allotment under the dependent quota is to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased dealer facing financial hardship.
"The relevant considerations are dependency, financial need, residence, and the ability of the applicant to discharge the obligations attached to the dealership. Marital status bears no rational nexus to any of these considerations," it said.
The apex court said the impugned provision proceeds on the assumption that, upon marriage, a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent upon, her parental family, and such an assumption is constitutionally impermissible.
“Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency. Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents. Equally, there may be sons who are not dependent upon the family despite being included within the definition. Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone," it said.
The top court noted that the scheme does not exclude a married son from consideration, as he continues to remain within the fold of the family irrespective of his marital status, whereas a daughter is excluded solely because she is married.
"The distinction is founded upon a gender-based stereotype that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family and loses all ties with her natal family.
“Such a presumption is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality and perpetuates historical notions of gender inequality, which the Constitution seeks to eradicate," the top court said.
It also rejected the state's submission that a married daughter may not satisfy the requirement of local residence, saying the contention is equally untenable.
