Exclusion of married daughter from compassionate appointment is discriminatory: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently held that the exclusion of a married daughter from compassionate appointment is arbitrary and discriminatory [State of Punjab v. Amarjit Kaur]..A Bench of Justices GS Sandhawalia and Harpreet Kaur Jeewan held that rejection of compassionate appointment to a married daughter, simply on the ground of gender, was violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. “...a married daughter is shut out from even applying as she would not come within the zone of consideration whether she is dependent or not but exclusion is only on account of gender and it would be patently discriminatory,” the Court held. .The Court pointed out that a deceased government employee may only have daughters, and that merely being married would not exclude her from the zone of consideration as she could be in a position to help the widowed mother on getting employment. “It has been time and again observed that once a daughter always a daughter while a son might change on account of the fact that he is married and has a wife to look after who could have serious differences with her in-laws.”In this regard, the Court observed that even if a son is not on good terms with his parents, he would have the right of consideration, as opposed to a daughter having a good relationship with them. .The Court was hearing a batch of pleas by daughters who were denied consideration for compassionate appointments on the ground that they were married. The question before the Court was whether this exclusion was justified. .The cases arose after a single-judge of the High Court held that a policy of the Panjab University excluding married daughters was violative of fundamental rights. The University appealed against this decision. Since this judgment was of considerable importance, with a far-reaching effect on those similarly situated, the Court combined cases with a similar issue with this appeal. .The University submitted that this was a “reasonable classification,” as after marriage, daughters would no longer be dependent on the family of the deceased, and therefore, were rightly excluded from consideration. .However, the Court discussed decisions by several High Courts which upheld the right of married women to be considered for such appointments at length, while agreeing with the view taken by the single-judge. .Contrarily, with regard to a similar consideration being granted to married sisters, the Bench took a different view. It was found that the rules only permitted consideration to unmarried brothers and sisters alike. Therefore, the classification was justified. “The classification thus is justified and there is no discrimination inter se the siblings and therefore, the claim in the writ petition is without any basis.".Advocates Rashika Bansal, Dheeraj Mahajan, Dinesh Kumar, Varinder Singh Rana, and Jagdeep Jaswal appeared for the petitioners.Deputy Attorney General Arjun Sheoran appeared for the State government, while Advocate Vijay Pal represented Panjab University.Advocate Brahmeet Singh appeared for the respondent. .[Read judgment]