Kiran Raj

In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the state authorities to appoint a widow to the post of School Lecturer, despite her having more than two surviving children, a condition that initially rendered her ineligible under the recruitment rules. The court, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, held that the petitioner’s exclusion from the recruitment process violated constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The court also noted that a recent amendment to the service rules, which extended relaxation of the two-child norm to all widows, including divorcees, supported the petitioner’s case. The court stated the need for a liberal and equitable interpretation of welfare-oriented provisions, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals.

The petitioner, a widow belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community, applied for the post of School Lecturer under the SC-Widow category in response to an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) on October 16, 2015. She successfully qualified for the position based on merit. However, during the scrutiny of her application, the RPSC declared her ineligible on December 11, 2018, citing that she had more than two surviving children born after June 1, 2002, which violated the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement.

The petitioner, a mother of four children, one of whom is disabled, challenged the RPSC’s decision, arguing that it contravened a government notification dated February 28, 2011. This notification, issued under Article 309 of the Constitution, provided that a child born from an earlier delivery and having a disability should not be included in the count of children for determining eligibility. The petitioner also contended that the respondents had acted in a discriminatory manner by denying her the relaxation granted to widows under the Compassionate Appointment framework, despite her meritorious standing in the widow category.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner’s candidature was rightly rejected in accordance with the recruitment rules in force at the time. They maintained that even if one of her children was excluded from the count due to disability, she would still have three surviving children, which exceeded the permissible limit of two. The respondents also pointed out that the recruitment process for the post had already been concluded.

The court observed that the petitioner had secured the requisite merit under the SC-Widow category and that her candidature was rejected solely on the grounds of having more than two surviving children. The court noted that the amendment introduced on March 16, 2023, to the Rajasthan Various Service Rules, which extended the relaxation of the two-child norm to all widows, including divorcees, was a beneficial amendment and should be interpreted liberally. The court stated, “This Court upon observing the above-stated material facts, is of the opinion that the said amendment reflects a progressive and inclusive approach.”

The court further observed that the petitioner, as the sole breadwinner of her family, was responsible for supporting and raising four children, one of whom was disabled. Her status as a member of the Scheduled Caste community was noted as a factor that warranted judicial intervention. The court stated, “The petitioner’s circumstances exemplify the need for equitable and inclusive consideration in public employment opportunities.”

The court also noted that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality and non-discrimination. The court stated, “The petitioner’s marginalized status and meritorious standing under the widow category demand equal treatment under the law. Denying her claim disregards the principles of fairness and perpetuates systemic inequities, especially for women from vulnerable communities.”

The court referred to the principles of substantive equality, which require the state to recognize and accommodate the unique challenges faced by individuals in disadvantaged positions. The court also referred to Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which obligates the state to promote justice and welfare, especially for women and children. The court stated, “The petitioner’s role as the sole caregiver to a disabled child further underscores her entitlement to special consideration.”

In its final order, the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s application and grant her appointment to the post of School Lecturer under her respective category. The court clarified that the benefits of the appointment would not accrue retrospectively. The court stated, “Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner and grant appointment to her on the said post under her respective category without further ado, and benefits qua the said appointment shall not accrue retrospectively.”

The court also made it clear that the judgment was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and should not be treated as a precedent. The court stated, “Notwithstanding anything above, it is made clear that the instant judgment is passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant matter and henceforth, ought not to be treated as a precedent.”

Case Title: Sunita Dhawan vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3742/2019
Bench:  Justice Sameer Jain

[Read/Download order]