Marital status can’t bar daughter from compassionate appointment: MP High Court

Referring to the full bench judgement, the court noted that it is crystal clear that Clause 2.2 of the Madhya Pradesh Compassionate Appointment Policy, which deprives the married daughter of the right of consideration, cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Clause 2.2 states that if the surviving spouse of a deceased government servant is ineligible or unwilling to take the compassionate appointment, they can nominate their son or unmarried daughter for the position.

Divorced daughter denied compassionate appointment

The woman’s father worked as a headmaster in a government middle school until he died on November 5, 2007. Although she was married during her father’s lifetime, her husband later deserted her. She returned to live with her father, remaining financially dependent on him for six to seven years before his death. Following the separation, the couple initially executed a notarised divorce deed.

Justice Deepak Khot remanded the woman’s application for fresh consideration to the department.

On October 18, 2012, the daughter applied for a compassionate appointment with the State of Madhya Pradesh as a divorced daughter. The department informed her that a notarised document was legally insufficient and requested an official court order. In response, she secured a formal mutual-consent divorce decree through the Lok Adalat in November 2013, and submitted it to the authorities.

Despite submitting the required decree, the department rejected her application in 2014. The woman submitted a representation explaining her financial reliance on her late father, but her claim was rejected a second time in August, 2016.

The government argued that under Clause 2.2 of its 2008 policy, a daughter was eligible for compassionate appointment only if she was already divorced and dependent on the employee at the exact time of his death. Because she was legally married when her father died, they considered her ineligible.

Challenging these rejections, the woman filed the present plea, requesting the court to set aside the rejection orders and direct the state to consider her for compassionate appointment.

Marital status can’t bar appointment: Order

The court observed that the issue of denying compassionate appointment to a daughter based on her marital status at the time of her father’s death is no longer open to debate.

Referencing the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling, the court emphasised that policy decisions must uphold gender justice, non-discrimination under Article 15(1), and equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 16(1) of the Constitution.

The court noted that under Clause 2.2 of the state’s policy, a living spouse could nominate a son without any condition regarding his marital status, whereas the condition of being “unmarried” was strictly applied to daughters.

The court relied on the full bench judgment and held that Clause 2.2 of the policy is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 39(a) of the Constitution of India to the extent that it deprives married daughters of the right to be considered for compassionate appointment.