His mother died on the job. The state denied him because he was male. The court disagreed.

When a Mother’s Job Was Reserved for Women, Her Son Was Denied a Job. The Madras High Court Just Changed That.

G. Karthikeyan’s mother, Jayam Ganesan, died while working as a Cook at a Government Higher Secondary School under the Noon Meal Scheme on 5 November 2021. He was a young man in difficult financial circumstances. He applied for a compassionate appointment — a government job given to a family member of a deceased employee to prevent the family from falling into destitution. His application was rejected. Not because he was unqualified. Not because there were no vacancies. But because he was a man.

A government order — G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 18 August 2021 — stated that since all posts under the Noon Meal Scheme were 100% reserved for women, only female legal heirs could get compassionate appointments. Karthikeyan’s mother had worked for the state. She had died in harness. But because her son was male, the state told him: you cannot have her job, and you cannot have any job through this route.

The stakes were simple: could a state government, by reserving every post in a department for women, completely exclude male heirs from compassionate appointment? Or did that violate the Constitution’s promise of equality?

On 26 June 2024, a single bench of the Madras High Court — Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy — answered that question. The answer was a clear no.

The Three Rejection Letters

Karthikeyan’s journey began with hope. On 21 March 2022, he applied to the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union at Keezhaiyur — the fifth respondent. On 1 April 2022, the application was rejected. The reason: G.O.Ms.No.48 restricted compassionate appointments in the Noon Meal Scheme to women only.

He didn’t give up. On 28 October 2022, the Personal Assistant to the District Collector, Nagapattinam — the fourth respondent — communicated the rejection again. On 4 August 2023, the same authority reiterated the rejection.

Three rejection orders. One reason: he was male.

Karthikeyan then approached the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging both the rejection orders and the government order itself. He argued that G.O.Ms.No.48 was discriminatory on the basis of sex and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

What the State Argued — and Why It Didn’t Work

The respondents — the Government of Tamil Nadu and its officers — had a straightforward argument. They pointed to a previous Madras High Court case: W.P.(MD).No.12263 of 2022. In that case, they said, a similar challenge to the same G.O. had been dismissed. The G.O. was valid, they argued, because all posts under the Noon Meal Scheme were reserved for women, and compassionate appointment could only be given against existing vacancies.

But Justice Chakravarthy saw a crucial difference. In W.P.(MD).No.12263 of 2022, the petitioner had not specifically challenged the G.O. itself. The court in that case had merely dismissed the writ petition but directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation for compassionate appointment to any other post. The G.O. had not been upheld on its merits.

The Court also noted another case — W.P.(MD).No.6186 of 2022 — where a similarly situated petitioner had been directed to have their application forwarded to the District Collector for consideration under the general list. That pattern mattered.

The Doctrine That Broke the Wall

The Court’s reasoning was sharp and simple. It held that G.O.Ms.No.48, to the extent it completely excluded male heirs from compassionate appointment, was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Here’s why. The government order did not just say that only women could be appointed to Noon Meal Scheme posts. It said that only female heirs of deceased employees could get compassionate appointments in that scheme. That meant a male employee who died while working in the Noon Meal Scheme could have his daughter appointed — but a female employee who died could not have her son appointed.

The Court observed that this effectively put female employees a par below their male counterparts. A male employee’s heirs — whether male or female — could access compassionate appointment. A female employee’s male heirs could not. That was discrimination on the basis of sex, pure and simple.

THE TEST: If a government scheme treats the heirs of male employees differently from the heirs of female employees, it is discriminatory on the basis of sex. The state cannot use a 100% women-reserved post to justify a 100% exclusion of male heirs from compassionate appointment.

The Court did not strike down the entire G.O. It declared it illegal only to the extent it excluded male heirs completely. The reservation of posts for women in the Noon Meal Scheme itself was not under challenge. What was unconstitutional was the blanket denial of compassionate appointment to male heirs — without any alternative mechanism.

What the Court Ordered

The operative order was precise. The Writ Petition was allowed. The three rejection orders — dated 1 April 2022, 28 October 2022, and 4 August 2023 — were quashed. The respondents were directed to forward Karthikeyan’s application to the District Collector, Nagapattinam, within four weeks. The District Collector was then to consider the application along with other applications, depending on seniority, subject to eligibility and availability of vacancies, for appointment in other suitable posts.

In other words: the state could not give Karthikeyan a job in the Noon Meal Scheme because those posts were reserved for women. But it could not use that as a reason to deny him any job at all. His application had to be considered for other posts in the general pool.

Why This Matters for Practitioners

This judgment is a reminder of a basic constitutional principle: the state cannot use one form of affirmative action — reservation for women — to justify another form of discrimination — exclusion of male heirs from compassionate appointment. The two are not the same.

For advocates handling compassionate appointment cases, the key takeaway is this: if a government order or scheme restricts compassionate appointment to heirs of a particular sex, and that restriction is not directly linked to the nature of the job, it is likely unconstitutional. The burden is on the state to show that the restriction is reasonable and non-arbitrary.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is broader: when designing any employee benefit or succession scheme, ensure that the eligibility criteria do not indirectly discriminate on the basis of sex. A rule that seems neutral — “only female heirs can apply” — can be struck down if it places female employees at a disadvantage compared to their male counterparts.

The Bottom Line

G. Karthikeyan’s mother died serving the state. The state told her son he could not have her job because he was a man. The Madras High Court said: that is not how equality works. The state must consider him for other jobs. And any government order that completely excludes male heirs from compassionate appointment is unconstitutional.