The Supreme Court has held that any legal or policy classification differentiating a daughter from a son is per se unconstitutional, setting aside a Bihar government policy that restricted compassionate appointment eligibility solely to divorced or deserted daughters.

The Court observed that there can be no presumption in law that a daughter severs ties with her parental family upon marriage, noting that adopting a hyper-technical approach cannot be a ground to deny consideration of a claim on merits.

Setting aside the Patna High Court's order upholding the rejection, the apex court directed the State of Bihar to reconsider the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment on merits within eight weeks.

The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale held, "This Court has repeatedly held that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is, per se, unconstitutional. On a perusal of the policy, we find that classification restricting eligibility only to a divorced or deserted daughter cannot be sustained in the eye of law. There cannot be a presumption in law that, after marriage, a daughter severs her ties with her parental family and resides with husband in her matrimonial home. In the present case, a specific statement has been made by the appellant that, although her divorce has not been formally recognized by law, she has been also living with her parental family."

AOR Priyansha Sharma appeared for the Appellants, while AOR Manish Kumar appeared for the Respondents

Brief Facts

The appellants assailed the order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna before the Supreme Court of India. The claim of appellant No. 2 for appointment on compassionate grounds, following the death of her father, was rejected by the state authorities and subsequently upheld by the High Court. The rejection was based on two primary grounds: an objection raised by the brother of appellant No. 1, and the applicable government policy of Bihar, which restricted eligibility for compassionate appointment solely to divorced or deserted daughters.

Contentions of the Parties

The appellants submitted that the brother had subsequently furnished a No Objection Certificate, whereby the first ground for rejection no longer survived. It was further contended that restricting compassionate appointment only to divorced or deserted daughters was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The respondents submitted that the constitutional validity of the policy was not challenged by the appellants. It was argued that the underlying rationale of the policy was that a daughter, upon marriage, was ordinarily expected to leave her parental home and reside in her matrimonial home. It was further submitted that compassionate appointment was not a matter of right and was governed strictly by the prevailing government policy.

Observations and Directions of the Court

The Court observed that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son was per se unconstitutional. The Court held that there could be no legal presumption that a married daughter severs ties with her parental family.

Taking note of the fact that the appellant resided with her parental family and enjoyed the full support of her mother and brother, the Court observed that adopting a hyper-technical approach to deny consideration for compassionate appointment was legally unsustainable.

Holding that the objection of the brother no longer survived and that the policy's restrictive classification could not be sustained in the eye of the law, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court as well as the rejection order.

"In fact, she has the support of her entire family including her mother and brother. In any event, adopting a hyper-technical approach cannot be a ground to deny consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment, the appeal is entitled for consideration on merits. As already stated, the objection of the brother also no longer survives...In view of the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently, the order rejecting claim for compassionate appointment also stands set aside", the Court held.

The Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for compassionate appointment on merits within a stipulated timeframe, and allowed the civil appeal accordingly.

Cause Title: Sayara Khatoon & Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11623/2026]

Appearances:

Appellants: AOR  Priyansha Sharma, Advocates Rashmi Singh and Subhan Shankar Gogoi

Respondents: AOR Manish Kumar, Advocates Divyansh Mishra and Kumar Saurav

Click here to read/download the Order


Tags: