- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6131-DB WP No. 20185 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 20185 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE SELECTION AND APPOINTING AUTHORITY AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPATMENT OF EDUCATION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) AND: 1. SMT. RAMYA S.V., W/O SRINATH Y.N., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, BEHIND UB FACTORY, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6131-DB WP No. 20185 of 2024 SATHYAMANGALA, SWADENAHALLI POST, TUMAKURU-572 104. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATHA BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/04/2023 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.332/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners-State and Sri A. Vishwanatha Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The State has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 19.04.2023 passed in Application No.332/2023 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short 'Tribunal']. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6131-DB WP No. 20185 of 2024 3. The brief facts are that the respondent applied for selection to the post of Graduate Primary School Teacher, Classes 6th to 8th, pursuant to the Notification dated 21.03.2022 issued by petitioner No.2, claiming reservation under Scheduled Caste/Project Displaced Person [SC/PDP] category. The respondent was called for verification of documents. However, she did not find place in the Provisional Selection List, whereas a candidate who had secured lesser marks was selected under the said quota. 3.1 An endorsement dated 20.02.2022 was thereafter issued to the respondent stating that, since the name of the respondent's father was mentioned in the PDP certificate and the respondent was married as on the date of submission of the application, she was not eligible to claim the benefit of reservation under the PDP quota. 3.2 The Tribunal, upon considering the amendment brought to the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short, "the Rules, 1977"), and placing reliance on various decisions of this Court concerning the entitlement of a married daughter to seek appointment on compassionate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6131-DB WP No. 20185 of 2024 grounds, allowed the application. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the endorsement and directed the petitioners to appoint the respondent as a Graduate Primary School Teacher under the PDP quota. 4. Sri Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners-State, submits that as on the date of submission of the application, the status of the respondent had changed, inasmuch as she had become a member of her husband's family and, therefore, was not entitled to claim reservation under the PDP quota, which is meant for family members of a Project Displaced Person. It is further submitted that the PDP certificate stands in the name of the respondent's father and, upon her marriage, she ceased to be a member of the family of the Project Displaced Person and consequently became ineligible to avail the said benefit. 4.1 It is further submitted that, in terms of Rule 9(1)(AA) of the Rules, 1977, only an unmarried daughter is eligible to claim the benefit. It is contended that the reservation is intended for Project Displaced Persons and their eligible family members. Once the respondent is married and settled in her husband's - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6131-DB WP No. 20185 of 2024 family, she ceases to be eligible to claim the benefit of reservation under the PDP quota. 5. On the other hand, Sri A. Vishwanatha Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the land acquired was ancestral property and that the respondent had a vested right therein. It is contended that a PDP certificate issued in the name of the head of the family enures to the benefit of all members of the family, irrespective of their marital status. 5.1 It is further submitted that when a married son is held eligible to claim such benefit, an unmarried or married daughter cannot be subjected to discrimination. Learned counsel submits that the anomaly in the statute, which earlier resulted in discrimination between married and unmarried daughters, has been rectified by the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2025, notified on 18.10.2025, whereby married daughters have also been included under Rule 9. In view of the amended Rules, it is contended that the respondent is entitled to be considered for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6131-DB WP No. 20185 of 2024 appointment against the post reserved for Project Displaced Persons. 5.2 Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal, having taken note of the aforesaid aspects, has rightly allowed the application and directed the authorities to appoint the respondent to the post for which she had applied. 6. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the writ papers. 7. The respondent's claim to the post reserved under the SC/PDP category was rejected on the ground that the benefit available to Project Displaced Persons can be extended only to the members of their family. Since the PDP certificate was issued in the name of the respondent's father and, as on the date of submission of the application, the respondent was married, it was held that she no longer continued to be a member of the family of the Project Displaced Person and, therefore, was not entitled to claim the said benefit. 7.1 A similar controversy had arisen with regard to the differential treatment meted out to married and unmarried - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6131-DB WP No. 20185 of 2024 daughters while seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. This Court, in Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik vs. State of Karnataka, W.P. No.17788/2018, disposed of on 15.12.2020, гeported in 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3397, while examining the constitutional validity of the relevant provision, has held as under: "12.1 Article 14 of the Constitution of India prohibits the State from denying any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws. Article 16 is of application of general Rule of equality as laid down in Article 14 with special reference to opportunity for appointment and employment under the State. Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. It is an extension of Article 14, which expresses application of principle of equality. Therefore, no citizen shall be discriminated on the grounds of race, caste, sex or place of birth religion. Article 16 takes its root from Article 14 and ensures equality of opportunity in matters of employment under the State. Therefore, the fundamental right to equality means that persons in like situations under like circumstances should be treated alike. xxxxxx 14.1. Illustration - (i): In a case where the deceased Government servant having two sons, both of whom are married and one son declines the appointment on the ground that he is not interested in the job, the appointment is offered to the second son in terms of the Rules, married or unmarried hardly makes any difference in interpretation and offer of appointment when it comes to appointment to a son. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6131-DB WP No. 20185 of 2024 14.2.Illustration - (ii): In a case where the deceased Government servant has two daughters, both of whom are married in terms of the Rules, there can be no appointment given to such a family who has only daughters and all of whom are married thereby, defeating the very object of compassionate appointment. 14.3.Illustration - (iii): The facts of the case at hand where the deceased Government servant has a son and a daughter, the son declines the appointment on the ground that he is not willing and the daughter is denied on the ground she is married. The factor of dependency which is the key to grant or deny compassionate appointment is not even considered in the case at hand since the definition of ‘dependants’ and ‘family’ exclude the daughter who is married. 14.4. xxxx Therefore, the Rules insofar as it creates division of the same object of appointment on the basis of gender by granting appointment to a son without any qualification and denying the same to a daughter with the qualification of “marriage” cannot but be held to be discriminatory. Marriage does not determine the continuance of the relationship of a child with the parent, whether son or a daughter. Son continues to be a son both before and after marriage and a daughter also should continue to be a daughter both before and after marriage. This relationship does not get effaced by the fact of marriage, as marriage does not severe the relationship of the daughter with the parent. These relationships are neither governed nor defined by marital status. This notion on which the Rule is framed cannot answer the tests of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India." 8. The said view has attained finality. In any event, the said issue would not detain this Court any further in view of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6131-DB WP No. 20185 of 2024 amendment 2 Rule 9 of Rules 1977, whereby a married daughter as been included within the definition of "member of the family". Though the amendment as been brought into force by Notification dated 18.10.2025, the same is intended to remedy the anomaly that existed in the statutory provision. Having regard to the object and purpose of the amendment, it is liable to be construed as retroactive in operation and, therefore, applicable to all pending matters. 8.1 On a reading of the amendment to Rule 9 of the Rules, 1977, construed as having retroactive effect, and on applying the same to the facts of the present case, the discrimination or disentitlement of a married daughter would no longer survive. The very basis of the impugned endorsement thus stands rendered unsustainable. 9. The Tribunal has directed appointment of the respondent on independent and cogent grounds. The said reasons are further reinforced by the amendment brought to Rule 9 by the Rules, 2025, notified on 18.10.2025. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6131-DB WP No. 20185 of 2024 10. The petitioners have not made out any demonstrable ground warranting interference with the order of the Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal is well-reasoned and justified, both for the reasons assigned therein and for the additional reasons recorded in this order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The time for compliance with the order of the Tribunal is extended to a period of three months from today, if not, already complied with. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12