Compassionate appointment cannot exclude married daughters, orders SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that married daughters cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment and their omission from the definition of “family” is manifestly arbitrary, unjustified and constitutionally untenable.

A bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made the observation while setting aside an order of the Allahabad High Court that held the definition of “family” doesn’t include a married daughter for the purpose of compassionate appointment.

The top 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,” the bench 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,” the bench said.

The top court said 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 bench said.

It rejected the submission of the State that a married daughter may not satisfy the requirement of local residence is equally untenable.

The top court said a blanket exclusion of all married daughters cannot be justified on the speculative assumption that every married daughter necessarily resides elsewhere.

Constitutional adjudication cannot be founded on presumptions that are overboard and disconnected from lived realities, it said.

“The purpose of the dependent quota is neither to create a right of succession or inheritance in the dealership nor a reward for lineage. The object is limited and specific: to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family of a deceased dealer and to ensure continuity in the public distribution system.

“Once dependency is accepted as the governing criterion, exclusion of a married daughter solely on account of her marital status becomes wholly irrational and self-defeating. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of ‘family’ fails the test of reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary,” the bench said.

The top court said in the present case, the material on record establishes that the woman continued to reside in the same village even after her marriage and actively assisted her mother in the operation of the fair price shop.

“The appellant, upon her mother’s demise, assumed responsibility for maintaining her sisters, including a visually impaired sister.

“The authorities have not disputed these factual assertions. The sole ground on which her application was rejected was that she is a married daughter. Once that ground is held to be constitutionally invalid, no impediment survives to the grant of relief in her favour,” it said.