Summary
The Supreme Court held invalid the Railway Board’s exclusion of children born from a second marriage from consideration for compassionate appointment. Statutory legitimacy under the Hindu Marriage Act could not be confined to inheritance or disregarded through an arbitrary distinction between legitimate children. Consideration, rather than appointment, was directed, subject to financial need and the scheme’s other requirements.
Issues
- Whether children recognised as legitimate under section 16 could be excluded from compassionate-appointment consideration because they were born from a second marriage.
- Whether invalidation of that exclusion entitled an applicant to appointment irrespective of the scheme’s other conditions.
Provisions considered
- Section 16(1) and (3), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Subsection (1) conferred legitimacy; subsection (3) restricted property rights but did not restrict legitimacy itself to property matters. (¶¶ 12, 13, 18)
- Exclusion of children born from an unpermitted second marriage, Railway Board Circular dated 2 January 1992The exclusion from compassionate-appointment consideration was held arbitrary and ultra vires; reiteration after the unchallenged adverse High Court ruling was improper. (¶¶ 4, 14, 15, 18, 20)
Held
- Compassionate appointment was a scheme-based exception intended to address family hardship, rather than a hereditary right to public employment. Eligibility required satisfaction of the applicable scheme. (¶¶ 10, 11, 19)
- Excluding a class of statutorily legitimate children bore no reasonable nexus to preventing destitution. Discouraging bigamy did not justify the disproportionate exclusion of children who did not choose their parents. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- Section 16(3) did not diminish the legitimacy conferred by section 16(1). The contrary view restricting legitimacy to property purposes was rejected. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The applicant’s financial need and all other scheme conditions remained for individual examination. The authorities were directed to decide the application consistently with the judgment within three months. (¶¶ 19, 21)
- The connected appeal also lacked merit, the second marriage there being permissible under Muslim personal law. Other eligibility requirements remained open to scrutiny, with consideration to be completed within three months. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Result
Principal appeal dismissed without costs; compassionate-appointment application to be decided within three months subject to the remaining scheme conditions. Connected appeal disposed of without costs with the same consideration period; no unconditional appointment ordered.