SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE TWO-CHILD POLICY FOR GOVERNMENT JOBS

Case Name :- RAM LAL JAT V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2024)-SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

APPEAL No:- CIVIL APPEAL No.2744 OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.1294 OF 2023)

Dated:- 20/02/2024

Background:

The civil appeal was filed against the Rajasthan High Court decision, whereby the appellant’s challenge against the rejection of his candidature for the job of a police constable on the grounds of having more than two children was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Facts of the Case:

In the present matter, the appellant was an ex-serviceman, who retired from defence services on 31-01-2017. The appellant applied for the post of Police Constable in Rajasthan Police on 25-05-2018, but his candidature was rejected in light of Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinates Service Rules, 1989 on the ground of having more than two children after 01-06-2002. He was deemed ineligible for public employment by the State according to the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2001 (referred to as “the 2001 Rules”). These rules state that candidates with more than two children on or after 01-06-2002 are not eligible for appointment to the service. Rules 24 (4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinates Service Rules, 1989 are provided hereinunder as:

Rule 24. Disqualification for Appointment:-

No male candidate, who have more than one wife living, shall be eligible for appointment to the service unless the Government after being satisfied that there are special grounds for doing so, exempts any candidate from the operation of this rule.
No female candidate, who is married to a person having already a wife living, shall be eligible for appointment to the service unless the Government after being satisfied that there are special grounds for doing so, exempts any female candidate from the operation of this rule.
No married candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service if he/ she had at the time of his/her marriage accepted any dowry. Explanation- For the purpose of this rule “dowry” has the same meaning as in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Central Act 28 of 1961).
“No candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service who has more than two children on or after 1.6.2002.

The appellant challenged the rejection of his candidature before the division bench of the Rajasthan High Court. The Apex Court relied on the Judgment in Javed v. State of Haryana (2023) and stated that a similar rule was introduced as an eligibility condition to fight Panchayat elections, which was challenged and upheld by this Court. Hence, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision and said that there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the Court.

FULL O R D E R

1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is an ex-serviceman, who retired from defence services on 31.01.2017. He applied for the post of Police Constable in the Rajasthan Police on 25.05.2018, but his candidature was rejected in light of Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, on the ground that since he had more than two children after 01.06.2002, he stood disqualified for public employment under the State, as per the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2001 (for short, `the 2001 Rules’), which, inter alia, provides that “no candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service who has more than two children on or after 01.06.2002.”

3. The aggrieved appellant approached the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and a Division Bench, vide the impugned judgment dated 12.10.2022, has turned down his claim on the premise that the subject-Rule, under which the appellant has been disqualified, falls within the realm of policy and does not warrant any interference by the Court.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and carefully perused the material placed on record. A somewhat similar provision, which was introduced as an eligibility condition to contest Panchayat elections, has been upheld by this Court in Javed and others vs. State of Haryana and others, (2003) 8 SCC 369. This Court held that the classification, which disqualifies candidates for having more than two living children, was non-discriminatory and intra-vires the Constitution, since the objective behind the provision was to promote family planning.

5. It is the appellant’s contention that, in addition to 109 sets of Statutory Service Rules, where the aforesaid eligibility condition has been introduced, there are Rules regarding the absorption of ex-servicemen where the condition of not having more than two children has not been specified. Assuming it to be correct, we are of the view that such a plea does not advance the appellant’s case. It is undisputed that the appellant applied for recruitment to the post of Constable in Rajasthan Police and such recruitment is governed by the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. These 1989 Rules have been specifically enlisted at Serial No.104 of the Schedule appended to the 2001 Rules.

6. In view of this, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the High Court.

7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.