An adopted child has the same right as a biological child and he cannot be discriminated against while being considered for his parents’ work on humanitarian grounds, the Karnataka High Court has said. The court said that if such a distinction was made “then the adoption would serve no purpose”.
Rejecting the assertion of the Karnataka Government Crown, the Divisional Bench of Judge Suraj Govindaraj and Judge G Basavaraja said, “The distinction made between adopted son and natural son by Defendants 2 and 4 (Course and assistant prosecutor) or on the basis of the existing rules, in our opinion after careful consideration, would have no impact or role to play in the matter.”
The department had cited existing rules while denying employment on humanitarian grounds to an adopted son.
But the Court, in its recent judgment, said: “A son is a son or a daughter is a daughter, adopted or not; if such a distinction is accepted, adoption would serve no purpose. Be that as it may, apparently taking into account that this would violate Section 14 of the Constitution, said regulations have been amended to remove the artificial distinction.”
Vinayak M Muttatti was a Class IV employee at the Deputy Attorney General’s Office, JMFC, Banahatti. He had adopted a son through an adoption deed in 2011. Mr Muttatti died in March 2018. The same year his adopted son Girish filed a petition seeking employment on humanitarian grounds .
The representation was rejected by the department on the basis that the appellant was an adopted son and that the rules do not provide for the consideration of an adopted son for a compassionate appointment.
Girish appealed to the High Court against this rejection. In 2021, a single-judge bench denied his petition because the rules do not provide for an adopted son to be considered for a compassionate nomination.
Girish then appealed to the division bench. Meanwhile, in April 2021, the rules were changed removing the distinction made between a biological son and an adopted son.
Before the Division Bench, Girish’s lawyer pointed out that the modification made in 2021 had not been brought to the attention of the single judge. Government counsel argued that since the amendment was made in 2021 and Girish argued in 2018, the benefit of the subsequent amendment cannot be afforded to him.
The divisional bench noted that the subject matter of the compassionate nomination only arose due to any financial hardship and/or hardship experienced by the family due to the death of the winning family member.
In the present case, “the deceased left behind his wife and son and adopted son and a daughter who is mentally retarded and physically handicapped.”
Ruling in favor of Girish, the bench said: “In the present case, the daughter being a natural daughter, would have been entitled to a compassionate appointment had she not been mentally retarded and physically handicapped. In such a situation , he is the adopted son who was thus adopted by the deceased to care for the family due to the death of a natural son who requested a compassionate appointment.
‘We are of the view that the application made by the adopted son for a compassionate appointment is made in good faith and must be considered in the context of the difficulties faced by the family,’ the High Court said, rejecting the Department’s assertion. that the application must be examined on the basis of the rules applicable on the date on which the application was submitted.
The court ordered the Department to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment as if the petitioner was “a natural son without distinguishing between an adopted son and a natural son.”
(Except for the title, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Featured Video of the Day
On camera, an unarmed US security guard tackles a man with an assault rifle