The Karnataka High Court denied a petition moved by a woman seeking a compassionate appointment at the state’s rural drinking water and sanitation department after her father-in-law passed away.
A division bench comprising Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil upheld the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal’s earlier ruling, which dismissed Priyanka Halamani’s case.
The court decided that the applicable laws’ statutory definition of “family” does not include a daughter-in-law, and the court has no authority to alter that definition.
“The Legislature has clearly defined the ‘family’ for compassionate appointments, and the daughter-in-law is not included. Courts cannot alter or expand this definition.” Halamani’s counsel argued that Rule 2(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 2021, should be interpreted to include the daughter-in-law,” the bench said.
The court stated that the “reading down” approach, which is used to refine laws with overly broad provisions, did not apply in this case since there was no constitutional or legislative challenge to the law.
Furthermore, the bench stressed that defining eligibility for compassionate appointments is a question of public policy that lies under the Legislature’s jurisdiction.
“The law maker as a matter of policy has framed the definition of ‘family’ to include specific relatives of the employee dying in harness and the daughter-in-law is not one of them. It is not within the domain of Courts to expand or constrict a statutory definition,” the bench said.
The court added: “The doctrine of reading down may be invoked and applied if the statute is silent, ambiguous or admits more than one interpretation. But where it is express, and clearly mandates to take certain action or to mean certain things, the function of the Court is to interpret it plainly.”
Dismissing the plea, the court said: ““For the purpose of compassionate appointment, who all can lay a claim, is a matter of public policy that falls within the domain of law-maker, and the Courts being his coordinate branch, cannot run a race of opinions with him. A greater wisdom lies in confining to the conventional limits of judicial process, leaving the legislative one to the other coordinate branch, than otherwise. More is not necessary to specify.”
