In a significant ruling aimed at upholding gender equality and preventing arbitrary discrimination, the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from being considered for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds solely due to her marital status. Presided over by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, the Court set aside a rejection order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Raniganj, Pratapgarh, and directed the authority to reconsider the petitioner’s application in light of established legal precedents.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Reena Devi Patel. Her father, Raj Bahadur Patel, had been allotted a fair price shop dealership in Gram Panchayat Chalakpur Kurmiyan, Block Baba Belkharnath Dham, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. Following his death on November 2, 2025, the petitioner submitted an application on December 30, 2025, seeking the allotment of the dealership under the dependent quota on compassionate grounds.
In her application, she stated that she had continued to reside with her father even after her marriage, was a local resident, and fulfilled all requisite eligibility criteria. However, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Raniganj, Pratapgarh, rejected her application vide an order dated January 21, 2026, on the sole ground that she was a married daughter and therefore did not fall within the definition of “family” under the applicable rules.
Arguments of the Parties
Arguing for the petitioner, advocate Daya Shankar Yadav submitted that the sole ground for rejecting the application was her status as a married daughter. He contended that denying a compassionate appointment to an eligible dependent purely based on marital status is arbitrary, unreasonable, and directly violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner’s counsel relied heavily upon the Supreme Court judgment in Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1059), which held that a married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment as a fair price shop dealer solely on account of her marriage. Furthermore, he argued that Clause 2(p) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (referred to as the “Control Order, 2016”), defines “family” to include “adult children” fully dependent on the head of the family, which encompasses both sons and daughters, whether married or unmarried.
Opposing the petition, Badrish Kumar Tripathi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel (ACSC) representing the State-respondents, argued that although a married daughter might be eligible to apply, she must still satisfy other mandatory conditions. These include proving her dependency on the deceased dealer, obtaining no-objection certificates from other adult family members, holding local residency, and possessing the prescribed educational qualifications. The State also raised a preliminary objection, contending that the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Order 13 of the Control Order, 2016, and therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
The Court’s Analysis
In its analysis, the Court examined the provisions of the Control Order, 2016, and the Government Order dated August 5, 2019, which regulate the eligibility criteria for rural fair price shop dealerships. Clause 2(p) of the Control Order, 2016, defines “family” to include “adult children” who are fully dependent on the head of the family, while also separately listing unmarried, legally separated, and widowed daughters.
The Court observed that a rigid, literal interpretation of these provisions would create a discriminatory classification between married and unmarried daughters. Addressing this distinction, the Court observed:
“If the aforesaid provisions are interpreted conjointly by adopting a literal interpretation, it would lead to an anomalous and absurd result which was never intended by the legislature, as daughters cannot be arbitrarily classified into married and unmarried categories for the purpose of extending a welfare measure. Such an arbitrary classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination based on unreasonable classification.”
Referencing landmark Supreme Court judgments, including E.P. Royappa v. State of Madras (1974) and State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Court reiterated that any classification under Article 14 must be founded on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Since the public distribution system aims to ensure the equitable distribution of essential commodities, its provisions must be interpreted in a purposive manner.
The Court specifically relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kulsum Nisha, which clarified that the term “daughter” must be read to include a married daughter, provided she establishes dependency and satisfies all other eligibility criteria. The High Court highlighted the Supreme Court’s key observation:
“For the foregoing reasons, on a purposive construction of Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, we hold that the expression “daughters” used in the aforesaid provision includes a married daughter who furnishes a dependency certificate along with No Objection Certificates from other adult family members of the deceased dealer and is a local resident and satisfies all other eligibility conditions prescribed in the G.O. The provision, so construed, would neither suffer from any invalidity nor any constitutional infirmity. It is saved by the very meaning it bears when understood in the light of its purpose.”
The Decision
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that the categorical exclusion of married daughters from compassionate appointment is legally unsustainable. The Court noted:
“rejection of the petitioner’s application solely on the ground that she is a married daughter, for appointment as a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds, is arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to above.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned rejection order dated January 21, 2026. The matter was remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raniganj, Pratapgarh, with directions to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law and the observations made in the judgment. The Court ordered that this entire exercise must be concluded by the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him.
Case Details:
Case Title: Reena Devi Patel Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food Civil Supply Deptt. And 5 Others
Case No.: WRIT-C No. 1213 of 2026
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Date: June 19, 2026
