The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court ruled that a married daughter cannot be denied compassionate appointment as a fair price shop dealer merely because of her marital status. The Court held, “Rejection of the petitioner’s application solely on the ground that she is a married daughter… is arbitrary and contrary to the law.”
Aiming to uphold gender equality and curb arbitrary discrimination, the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad presided over by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal has ruled that a married daughter cannot be denied consideration for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds merely because she is married.
The Court set aside the rejection order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Raniganj, Pratapgarh, and directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application in accordance with binding legal precedents.
The petition was filed by Reena Devi Patel. Her father, Raj Bahadur Patel, had been allotted a fair price shop dealership in Gram Panchayat Chalakpur Kurmiyan, Block Baba Belkharnath Dham, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh.
After his death on November 2, 2025, the petitioner applied on December 30, 2025, seeking allotment of the dealership under the dependent quota on compassionate grounds. She asserted that even after her marriage she continued to reside with her father, that she was a local resident, and that she met the required eligibility conditions.
However, the SDM rejected her application on January 21, 2026, solely on the ground that she was a married daughter and therefore did not fall within the definition of family under the applicable rules.
Arguing for the petitioner, advocate Daya Shankar Yadav contended that the sole basis for rejection her marital status was arbitrary and unreasonable, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1059), which held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment as a fair price shop dealer purely because of her marriage.
It was also argued that Clause 2(p) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (“Control Order, 2016”) defines family to include adult children who are fully dependent on the head of the family, covering both sons and daughters regardless of whether they are married or unmarried.
Representing the State, Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel (ACSC), opposed the petition. He submitted that while a married daughter may be eligible to apply, she must still fulfill other mandatory requirements such as proving dependency on the deceased dealer, obtaining no-objection certificates from other adult family members, establishing local residency, and meeting prescribed educational qualifications.
The State also raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy by way of an appeal under Order 13 of the Control Order, 2016, and thus the writ petition should be dismissed.
In its analysis, the High Court examined the Control Order, 2016, and the Government Order dated August 5, 2019, which govern eligibility for rural fair price shop dealerships.
The Court noted that Clause 2(p) of the Control Order, 2016 defines family to include fully dependent adult children, while also separately mentioning unmarried, legally separated, and widowed daughters.
The Court held that a strict and literal reading would create a discriminatory distinction between married and unmarried daughters.
The Court observed,
“If the aforesaid provisions are interpreted conjointly by adopting a literal interpretation, it would lead to an anomalous and absurd result which was never intended by the legislature, as daughters cannot be arbitrarily classified into married and unmarried categories for the purpose of extending a welfare measure. Such an arbitrary classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination based on unreasonable classification.”
Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as E.P. Royappa v. State of Madras (1974) and State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the High Court reaffirmed that Article 14 classification must be supported by (i) an intelligible differentia and (ii) a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. Since the public distribution system is meant to ensure fair and equitable distribution of essential commodities, the provisions must be interpreted in a purposive manner.
The High Court specifically relied on Kulsum Nisha, which clarified that the word daughter should be read to include a married daughter, provided she demonstrates dependency and satisfies all other eligibility conditions.
The High Court highlighted the Supreme Court’s conclusion as follows,
“For the foregoing reasons, on a purposive construction of Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, we hold that the expression “daughters” used in the aforesaid provision includes a married daughter who furnishes a dependency certificate along with No Objection Certificates from other adult family members of the deceased dealer and is a local resident and satisfies all other eligibility conditions prescribed in the G.O. The provision, so construed, would neither suffer from any invalidity nor any constitutional infirmity. It is saved by the very meaning it bears when understood in the light of its purpose.”
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that the categorical exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment is legally unsustainable.
It further noted,
“Rejection of the petitioner’s application solely on the ground that she is a married daughter, for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds, is arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to above.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the rejection order dated January 21, 2026, and remitted the matter to the SDM, Raniganj, Pratapgarh, to pass a fresh order in line with the law and observations made in the judgment.
The Court ordered that the entire process must be completed within two months from the date a certified copy of the judgment is produced before the SDM.