Summary
The Railways refused to consider a deceased employee’s son for compassionate appointment because he was born to the employee’s second wife. Applying V.R. Tripathi, the Court held that such exclusion violated equality and the express prohibition of discrimination based on descent. It set aside the High Court judgment and required consideration under the extant policy within three months, while preserving scrutiny of every other eligibility requirement. It did not direct appointment.
Issues
- Whether birth to a deceased employee’s second wife could by itself disqualify a child from compassionate appointment.
- Whether the remedy was appointment or consideration subject to the other policy requirements.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16(2), Constitution of IndiaThe exclusion arbitrarily divided legitimate children and discriminated solely on familial descent. (¶ 6-10)
- Section 16, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955Statutory legitimacy supported the rejection of discrimination between children of the first and second marriages. (¶ 6-7)
Held
- V.R. Tripathi governed the challenged Railway policy. Once Section 16 treated the child of the subsisting-marriage situation as legitimate, exclusion from compassionate consideration lacked a reasonable nexus with the policy’s purpose of preventing family destitution. (¶ 6-7)
- Compassionate appointment is a recognised exception to ordinary public recruitment, but its governing policy must comply with Articles 14 and 16. Descent includes familial origins, the validity of the parents’ marriage and the child’s legitimacy; those circumstances cannot alone justify exclusion. (¶ 8-10)
- The appellant was entitled to consideration, not an unconditional appointment. The authorities could examine compliance with all other legal and policy requirements and were directed to complete consideration within three months. (¶ 11)
- The High Court judgment was set aside and the appeal allowed, with the parties bearing their own costs. (¶ 11-12)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside. Appellant’s application to be considered under the extant policy within three months without disqualification solely because he is the second wife’s son. Other eligibility scrutiny preserved; own costs.