Bangalore. The Karnataka High Court observed that an adopted child has the same rights as a biological child and cannot be discriminated against while considering employment in place of the parent on compassionate grounds. The court said that if such discrimination is done, “no purpose of adoption would be served”.
Rejecting the contention of the Prosecution Department of the Government of Karnataka, the Division Bench of Justice Surat Govindaraj and Justice G. Basavaraj said, “In our view, based on the existing rules adopted by Respondent 2 and Respondent 4 (Prosecution Department and Assistant Public Prosecutor), The distinction between son and biological son will not be affected in the matter.”
The department cited existing rules while denying the job to the adopted son on compassionate ground. The court in its recent judgment said, “A son is a son and a daughter is a daughter, adopted or otherwise, if such a distinction is accepted, no purpose of adoption would be served.” .
This would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.” Vinayak M Muttati was a Class IV employee in the office of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, JMFC, Banahati. He adopted a son in 2011. Muttati had died in March 2018. In the same year, his adopted son Girish applied for a job on compassionate ground.
The department had refused to give job on the ground that the appellant was an adopted son and there was no rule to give job to an adopted son on compassionate ground. Girish had moved the High Court against this decision. The single bench of the High Court had dismissed the same petition in 2021.
Thereafter he filed a petition before the Division Bench. Meanwhile, in April 2021, the distinction between biological son and adopted son was abolished. Girish’s counsel submitted before the bench that the amendment in 2021 was not brought to the notice of the single bench judge. The government’s counsel argued that since the amendment took place in 2021 and Girish had filed the petition in 2018, he cannot be given the benefit of the amendment.
Ruling in favor of Girish, the bench said, “In the present case, being the biological daughter of the daughter, she would have been entitled to compassionate appointment had she not been mentally and physically incapacitated.” In such a situation, the petition for compassionate appointment of the adopted son should be considered as he was adopted to take care of the family after the death of the biological son.”