Cuttack: A married daughter is also entitled to seek appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Prohibiting the consideration of married daughter from seeking appointment under the scheme is unconstitutional. Refusal to grant benefit to the ‘married’ daughter for consideration of compassionate appointment is hereby declared void and inoperative, ruled the Orissa High Court on Thursday.
The order was passed by Justice S.K. Panigrahi after hearing the petition of one Basanti Nayak who had challenged an order issued by the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle. Basanti had not been issued the appointment order for recruitment to Class-III Non Teaching Posts under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme even though her case was recommended for appointment by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha.
As per the petition, Basanti’s father while working as a Primary school teacher died on 23.02.2001 leaving behind the widow and two daughters. Basanti (married) is the elder daughter and has +2 Arts qualification. Upon the death of her father, she applied for appointment to the post of Class-III Non-teaching staffs under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. On the receipt of the application form, the necessary distress certificate was obtained from the Collector and her case was recommended for appointment by the Inspector of Schools.
The Director, Secondary Education, Odisha vide eligibility list shortlisted the deserving candidates and Basanti’s name found place in the said list. Subsequently, she was called for verification of documents by the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle. Basanti’s name found place in the list prepared by Inspector of Schools. However, the lesser deserving candidates were appointed and Basanti’s case was overlooked for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.
Basanti approached the Tribunal in 2008 against such inaction and the same was disposed of vide order dated 19.02.2008 with a direction to the Inspector of Schools to dispose of the representation made by her. On receipt of the order passed by the Tribunal, the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle vide order dated 08.04.2008 rejected the claim of Basanti on the ground that it violated government instructions.
Challenging it, Basanti’s advocate stated that the Inspector of Schools, Bhadrak Circle has not applied his mind into the matter as no Government Circular prohibits the married daughter of a deceased person, in absence of a son, for recruitment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Therefore, the Inspector of Schools on wrong appreciation of Government Circular passed the order rejecting the claim of Basanti and the same is liable to be set aside.
The advocate further stated that even after her marriage, Basanti is staying at her parent’s house along with her husband who also has no independent source of income and that her mother and younger sister have also suggested that the employment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme be given to Basanti keeping in view the distress condition of the family.
After hearing the claims of both parties, the Court observed that marriage by itself is not a disqualification and impugned policy of the State Government barring and prohibiting the consideration of the ‘married’ daughter from seeking appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, merely on the ground of marriage, is plainly arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees, as envisaged in Articles 14, 15, and 16(2) of the Constitution of India.
The court quashed the order passed by the Inspector of Schools. It said that refusal to grant benefit to the ‘married’ daughter for consideration of compassionate appointment is hereby declared void and inoperative. The court also order the opposite parties to reconsider Basanti’s claim for being appointed under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the fact that her father died on 23.02.2001 and her application was rejected on 08.04.2008, after seven years.
