NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said the Rajasthan government's rules which debarred a candidate from the public job if he or she was having more than two children was non discriminatory.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and K V Vishwanathan dismissed a plea by ex serviceman Ramji Lal Jat against the October 12, 2022 Rajasthan High Court's judgment, which declared that the subject rule fell within the realm of policy and does not warrant any interference.
After retirement from defence services on January 31, 2017, Jat applied for the post of Rajasthan police constable in the Rajasthan Police on May 25, 2018.
His candidature was, however, 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 June 01, 2002, he stood disqualified for public employment under the state, as per the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2001.
The rules stated, no candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service who has more than two children on or after June 01, 2002.
The appellant also relied upon the rules relating to the absorption of ex-servicemen where the condition of not having more than two children has not been specified.
The bench, however, said even such a plea does not advance the appellants case.
The court pointed out it was undisputed that the appellant applied for recruitment to the post of constable in Rajasthan Police and such recruitment was governed by the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which have specifically been enlisted at Serial No 104 of the Schedule appended to the 2001 Rules.
The bench said a somewhat similar provision, which was introduced as an eligibility condition to contest Panchayat elections, has been upheld by this court in 2003 in case of Javed and others Vs State of Haryana and others.
This court had then held that the classification, which disqualified 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, the bench said in its order on February 20.
