Introduction

The case of Ch. Damayanthi v. APSRTC Rep By Its Managing Director And Others adjudicated by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on February 26, 2021, marks a significant milestone in the realm of compassionate appointments within governmental institutions. The petitioner, Ch. Damayanthi, sought appointment under the "Bread Winner Scheme" following the untimely demise of her father, an APSRTC driver who died in service. The central issue revolved around the exclusion of married daughters from eligibility criteria for compassionate appointments, a policy which had previously favored unmarried dependents.

Summary of the Judgment

The Andhra Pradesh High Court deliberated on whether the exclusion of married daughters from the "Bread Winner Scheme" constitutes constitutional discrimination. The petitioner argued that despite being married, she remained the sole breadwinner supporting her widowed mother, thereby fitting the criteria of dependency outlined in the scheme. The respondents maintained that the scheme explicitly excluded married daughters, thereby rendering the petitioner's exclusion lawful.

After extensive examination of statutory provisions, constitutional mandates, and pertinent precedents, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The High Court declared the exclusion of the term “unmarried” from the eligibility criteria unconstitutional, highlighting it as discriminatory and arbitrary. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment within six weeks.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced several High Court judgments to bolster its stance against discriminatory practices based on marital status:

• Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik v. The State of Karnataka (2021): The Karnataka High Court held that excluding married daughters from compassionate appointments violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, as it constituted gender-based discrimination.
• Mamata Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020): The Himachal Pradesh High Court emphasized that marital status should not influence the eligibility for compassionate appointments, advocating for equal treatment irrespective of gender.
• N. Uma v. The Director of Elementary School Education (2017): The Madras High Court criticized the denial of compassionate appointments solely based on the petitioner’s marital status, reinforcing the principle of non-discrimination.
• Udham Singh Nagar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Anjula Singh (2019): The Uttarakhand High Court declared that excluding married daughters from the definition of "family" in compassionate appointment schemes violates Articles 14, 15, and 16.
• C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India (1979): The Apex Court identified discriminatory practices against women in employment schemes, emphasizing the need for constitutional conformity.
• Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of Maharashtra (2014): The Bombay High Court invalidated government resolutions that excluded married daughters from compassionate appointments as unconstitutional.
• Sou. Swara Sachin Kulkarni v. The Superintending Engineer, Pune Irrigation Project Circle (2013): The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that denial based on marital status is unconstitutional.
• K. Padmaja v. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City: The Andhra Pradesh High Court recognized that marital status should not negate eligibility for compassionate appointments if dependency exists.
• V. Shashi Kala v. District Collector, Anantapuramu: The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that married daughters residing with dependent parents should be eligible for compassionate appointments.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning was anchored in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 14 and 15, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on grounds such as sex. The "Bread Winner Scheme" aimed to alleviate the financial distress of families who lost their primary breadwinner due to the death of a government employee. The eligibility criteria, as initially framed, unjustly excluded married daughters, thereby violating the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Analyzing the definitions within the scheme, the Court found that while biological sons were included irrespective of marital status, an explicit exclusion was placed on married daughters. This discrepancy lacked rational basis and perpetuated gender bias. Drawing parallels with the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the Court emphasized that the dependency of a child on parents does not cease upon marriage, for both sons and daughters.

The Court further highlighted that societal roles and responsibilities do not justify constitutional violations. By maintaining disparate treatment based on marital status, the respondents contravened the very essence of the scheme's objective to provide social security to dependent family members.

Impact

This landmark judgment has far-reaching implications for public employment policies and compassionate appointment schemes across India. By invalidating discriminatory clauses that exclude married daughters, the Court has set a precedent mandating equal treatment for all dependent family members, regardless of gender or marital status.

Government bodies and public sector undertakings must revise their compassionate appointment policies to ensure inclusivity and constitutional compliance. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing equality and may inspire similar challenges in other discriminatory practices within public policies.

Moreover, the judgment fosters a more equitable societal framework, recognizing the continuing role and dependency of married daughters in familial structures. It propels the legal system towards dismantling archaic norms that impede gender parity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment in Ch. Damayanthi v. APSRTC Rep By Its Managing Director And Others stands as a beacon of constitutional morality and judicial activism. By invalidating the exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment schemes, the Court reinforced the inviolable principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution.

This decision not only rectifies an unjust policy but also propels public sector employment practices towards greater inclusivity. It acknowledges the evolving dynamics of familial responsibilities and gender roles, ensuring that social welfare mechanisms serve their intended purpose without perpetuating bias.

Ultimately, the judgment reiterates the judiciary's pivotal role in upholding constitutional values and fostering a just society where merit and need supersede discriminatory criteria.