The Supreme Court struck down Bihar's compassionate appointment policy that restricted married daughters from seeking the benefit, allowing it only to daughters who were divorced or deserted. The Court held this distinction unconstitutional, ruling it violated the right to equality. Compassionate appointment schemes exist to provide immediate employment to a family member upon a government employee's death or permanent incapacitation, to relieve sudden financial distress. Conditioning eligibility on marital status of daughters was held to be discriminatory and gender-stereotyped.

Compassionate appointment is a welfare measure, not a right — it allows a dependent family member to receive government employment on humanitarian grounds when a serving employee dies in harness or is permanently incapacitated. The scheme is an exception to the normal recruitment process and is governed by service rules framed by each state.

The Bihar policy created a classification among daughters based on marital status: unmarried daughters were eligible, divorced or deserted daughters were eligible, but married daughters were excluded. The implicit assumption was that a married daughter has a husband to depend on and therefore does not need the compassionate benefit.

The Supreme Court's ruling attacks this assumption directly. It applies the standard equality test under Article 14 — a classification must be based on an intelligible differentia that bears a rational nexus to the object of the legislation. The object of compassionate appointment is to relieve sudden financial hardship to a dependent family member. A married daughter can be financially dependent on her parents and can suffer equal hardship upon their death. Marital status, by itself, does not determine financial dependence.

The deeper constitutional principle invoked is judicial gender stereotyping — the Court has consistently held (beginning with Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and continuing through Joseph Shine) that policies premised on the assumption that a woman derives economic security from a male partner are constitutionally impermissible. This ruling extends that principle into service law, making it a significant precedent for CLAT PG.