The Court dismissed a petition by a daughter-in-law who sought compassionate appointment in the Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation Department of the state. The petition had contested an earlier decision by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which had denied a directive to the government for her appointment.
Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court refused to modify Rule 2(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 2021, which excludes daughters-in-law from the definition of ‘family.’
The Court dismissed a petition by a daughter-in-law who sought compassionate appointment in the Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation Department of the state. The petition had contested an earlier decision by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which had denied a directive to the government for her appointment.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil stated,
“As a matter of policy, the lawmaker has defined ‘family’ to include certain specific relatives of an employee who dies in service, and a daughter-in-law is not among them. It is not the role of the Courts to broaden or narrow a statutory definition.”
Advocate Shivraj S. Balloli represented the petitioner, while Advocate G.K. Hiregoudar appeared for the respondent. The petitioner’s counsel contended that Rule 2(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 2021, should be construed to include a daughter-in-law within the definition of ‘family.’
If accepted, this interpretation would have entitled the petitioner to a compassionate appointment. However, the government opposed the petition, arguing that the legislative intent behind the rules should be upheld. They stressed that since lawmakers had deliberately excluded daughter-in-laws from the definition of ‘family,’ including them would amount to an unwarranted change in the law.
The Court clarified
“The doctrine of reading down can be applied when a statute is silent, ambiguous, or open to multiple interpretations. However, when the law is explicit and mandates specific actions or meanings, the Court’s role is to interpret it as it is.”
The Court further stated
“Determining who is eligible for compassionate appointments is a matter of public policy, within the lawmaker’s domain. Courts, as a co-equal branch, should not contest the policymaker’s decisions. Judicial restraint lies in respecting these boundaries, leaving legislative matters to the lawmakers.”
Case Title: Priyanka Halamani v. The State of Karnataka & Ors
