{"id":281124,"date":"2023-01-06T10:00:17","date_gmt":"2023-01-06T04:30:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=281124"},"modified":"2023-01-18T10:13:21","modified_gmt":"2023-01-18T04:43:21","slug":"karnataka-high-court-guideline-excluding-married-daughter-issuance-of-i-cards-dependants-ex-servicemen-violative-art-14-legal-updates-legal-news-legal-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/06\/karnataka-high-court-guideline-excluding-married-daughter-issuance-of-i-cards-dependants-ex-servicemen-violative-art-14-legal-updates-legal-news-legal-research\/","title":{"rendered":"Guideline excluding married daughter for issuance of I-cards to dependants of ex-servicemen, held violative of Art. 14; Karnataka High Court struck down the words \u201ctill married\u201d from the impugned policy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

   <\/p>\n

Karnataka High Court:<\/b> While considering the reasonableness of Guideline issued by the Directorate of Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement, vis-à-vis issuance of dependant identity cards for the wards of ex-servicemen, which were alleged to have discriminated on grounds of gender, the Bench of M. Nagaprasanna<\/b>*, J., held that exclusion of married daughter for grant of an I-card in terms of Guideline 5(c) of the Guidelines for Issuance of I-cards to dependants of ex-servicemen to be violative of Arts. 14<\/a> and 15<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> and accordingly, struck down the words “till married<\/i>” in the impugned Guideline. “If any Rule\/Policy\/Guideline, which would be in violation of the Rule of equality, such Rule\/Policy\/Guideline cannot but be obliterated, as being unconstitutional<\/i>”.<\/p>\n

Pertinent Facts of the Case:<\/b> The petitioner is the daughter of one late Subedar Ramesh Khandappa Police Patil, a solder in the Indian Army, who joined on 25.06.1979 and succumbed to a land mine explosion on 31.12.2001, after rendering about 22 years of service. Since the late Subedar died while performing his assigned task, he was categorized as a solder “killed in action”<\/span> and was to be considered as a “Ward of Battle Casualty<\/span>”. The petitioner is the second daughter of the said ward who was killed in battle casualty. The ex-serviceman had thus only two children, both of whom are daughters.<\/p>\n

The Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement notified several welfare schemes pertaining to veterans, widows and disabled soldiers and their wards. In the said scheme 10% reservation for ex-servicemen in any recruitment of the State Government for employment for groups A, B, C and D and relaxation of age are some of the benefits that are conferred.<\/p>\n

Later, the State Government issued a notification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors under the afore-quoted Rules. The notification reserves 10% of the vacancies for ex-servicemen. Under the quota of ex-servicemen, either the ex-servicemen themselves can claim the quota or in their absence, the wards of ex-servicemen would become eligible to apply.<\/p>\n

As per the “Eligibility for Dependent Identity Cards”<\/i> Guidelines,<\/i> for registration under the ex-servicemen quota, an applicant will have to demonstrate that that applicant is himself or herself an ex-serviceman or ward of such ex-serviceman and for such demonstration particularly in cases of the ward claiming ex-servicemen quota, would require a dependant I- card.<\/p>\n

However, the petitioner’s request for issuance of I-card was declined as she was married and failed to demonstrate that she was the ward of an ex-serviceman to claim the benefit of being one. Hence the petitioner approached the High Court.<\/p>\n

Contentions:<\/b> The petitioner contended that the guideline permits issuance of a card both to the daughter or a son of an ex-servicemen, the rider is, that it is issued only till the daughter gets married, which is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Per contra<\/i>, the respondents contended that the moment the daughter gets married, she loses the status of being a dependant of the ex-servicemen.<\/p>\n

It was submitted that the Guidelines bring about a cap of 25 years of age, both for the daughter and son. Beyond 25 years, no person is given the card for any benefits or even participation in any recruitment process. It was thus argued that there is no discrimination between sons or daughters once they reach the age of 25.<\/p>\n

Court’s Assessment:<\/b> Upon perusal of the facts and contentions, Justice Nagaprasanna made the following analysis-<\/p>\n