WP/22872/2024 of VATTI DRAKSHAYANI Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 30 January 2026

1. VATTI DRAKSHAYA AGED ABOUT R/O.TAMMAYYAPETA SRIKAKULAM DISTR

1. STATE OF ANDHR DEPARTMENT, SEC REP.BY ITS PRINCIP

2. THE DISTRICT COLL

3. THE SUPERINTEN SRIKAKULAM.

Petition under Article circumstances stated in th pleased topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus under the action of the respond appointment to the petition Rc.No. 171/2020 A3 date principles of natural justice and in violation of memo HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT URABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH T PETITION NO: 22872/2024 ANI, D/O. LATE VATTI MALLIKARJU

YEARS,

OCC. UN-EM A, NARASANNA PETA VILLAGE AN ICT. ...PE AND RA PRADESH, PROHIBITION AND CRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR D PAL SECRETARY ECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. DENT OF PROHIBITION AND ...RESPON 226 of the Constitution of India praying e affidavit filed therewith, the High Co a writ or direction more particularly in th r Article 226 of the constitution of Indi ents in rejecting the proposal for pro ner on compassionate grounds vide p ed 18.04.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, v , violation of Article 14 of the Constitut of the Government of Andhra Prades

UNA RAO MPLOYEE, ND POST, TITIONER D EXCISE DISTRICT, EXCISE, NDENT(S): g that in the urt may be he nature of a declaring oviding the proceedings violation of ion of India sh General

Administration (SER.A)Department in Memo No. 140733/SER.A/2003-1 dated 14.11.2003 and consequently direct the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds and pass s IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the respondents to re-consider the proposal for providing of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds pursuant to Memo NO.140733/SER.A/2003-1 dated 14.11.2003 by suspending the proceedings of the Rc.No.171/2020 A3 dated 18.04.2023, during pendency of the Writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. KRISHNA RAO M Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following ORDER:

The writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide impugned proceedings Rc.No.171/2020 A3, dated 18.04.2023 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds in accordance with Memo dated 14.11.2003.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the daughter of late Sri Vatti Mallikarjuna Rao, who died while in service as a Prohibition and Excise Head Constable in the Special Enforcement Bureau, Srikakulam District. The petitioner herein acquired the qualification of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) from GITAM University. It is further submitted that the petitioner, along with her mother Smt. Vatti Padmavathi, grandmother Smt. Vatti Ammajamma, and younger brother Sri Vatti Sarath Kumar, are the legal heirs of the deceased employee, and that there are no earning members in the family, except the pension received by the petitioner’s mother. Hence, the petitioner’s mother made a representation dated 23.08.2021 along with all relevant documents to the competent authorities requesting compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner, which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent. It is further averred that the 2nd respondent, without considering the said representation on proper perspective, rejected the request vide proceedings in Rc.No.171/2020/A3 dated 18.04.2023 on the ground that the petitioner is a married daughter and has a younger brother, which action is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Memo

No.140733/SER.A/2003-1 dated 14.11.2003 and the settled law laid down by this Hon’ble Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected vide memo dated 18.04.2023 on the ground that the Circular memo dated 12.08.2023 issued by the Government would not apply to the petitioner. As per the memo dated 12.08.2023, it is stated that “When there is only a married daughter to the deceased Govt. employee without elder or younger brothers or sisters and the spouse of the deceased Govt, employees not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, such married daughter may be considered for compassionate appointment, provided she is dependent on the deceased Govt. employee.". In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. He further stated that the dependent children of a deceased Government Servant who dies while in service are eligible for compassionate appointment to the eligible post. But in the present case, the petitioner has one younger brother and he his eligible for providing of appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

5. In reply to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dependent children of the deceased Government servant who dies while in service are eligible for compassionate appointment for suitable post as per 140733/SER.A/2003-1 dated 14.11.2003 issued by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as Memo No.140733/SER.A/2003-1 dated 14.11.2003, compassionate appointments to the dependent of deceased government employees are subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:- “2. It is brought to the notice of the Government, that the Compassionate appointments "are not being" considered for the female dependent children of the deceased Government Employee, when the male child is available and certain discrimination is shown between the male child and the female child considering the Compassionate appointment. The objective of "the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment to the dependents' of deceased” Government employee is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased, in distress. Under the scheme ordered in the G.O. first cited, the Spouse/Son/Daughter of deceased Government employee shall be considered for Compassionate appointment.

3. Government direct that the Compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased Government employee shall be, considered either to spouse, son or daughter. In case, if the wife of the deceased Government employee is not inclined to take appointment on compassionate grounds or not qualified for the appointment, the 'choice of selecting one of her dependent children' either son or daughter, shall vests with her (the wife of the deceased Government employee).”

6. On perusal of the impugned orders as well as Memo No.140733/SER.A/2003-1 dated 14.11.2003, it clearly shows that the petitioner shall come under clause 2 & 3 of the conditions, as the younger brother is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment and the younger brother has submitted no objection certificate to the petitioner.

7. Apart from that, in identical cases this Court has considered the issue in W.P.No.10340 of 2014 dated 26.02.2021 and held that the word “Unmarried” is strike down in clause-III of eligibility criteria of “Bread Winner Scheme” of the respondent Corporation holding that it is discriminatory, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

8. In Smt. Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik’s case 1 the High Court of Karnataka while holding the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of expression ‘family’ in Rule 2(1)(a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 is illegal and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution observed as extracted hereunder:

14.4. In all the illustrations the offer of appointment or its denial is on the basis of gender as the sons of a deceased Government servant may well be married but are not denied appointment on the ground of marriage. If the daughters of a Government servant are married as marriage is a social commitment of a parent and in furtherance of such social commitment the daughter is given in marriage becomes ineligible to seek appointment in terms of the Rules. Therefore, the Rules insofar as it creates division of the same object of appointment on the basis of gender by granting appointment to a son without any qualification and denying the same to a daughter with the qualification of “marriage” cannot but be held to be discriminatory. Marriage does not determine the continuance of the relationship of a child with the parent, whether son or a daughter. Son continues to be a son both before and after marriage and a daughter also should continue to be a daughter both before and after marriage. This relationship does not get effaced by the fact of marriage, as 1 2021(1) AKR 444=2021(1) SCT 125 (Karnataka)

marriage does not severe the relationship of the daughter with the parent. These relationships are neither governed nor defined by marital status. This notion on which the Rule is framed cannot answer the tests of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

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.

9. In view of the above observations in the said judgment, the impugned memo dated 18.04.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider the same afresh and pass appropriate orders taking the no objections certificate submitted by the younger brother and mother of the petitioner into consideration, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. It is needless to mention that while considering the representation/application of the petitioner, the respondents shall also take into consideration the certificates filed in writ petition.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 31.01.2026 DSV

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 22872/2024

Dated: 31.01.2026

DSV