In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld Rajasthan’s policy requiring candidates for government jobs to adhere to a two-child norm. This decision asserts that the policy is not discriminatory and does not contravene the Constitution.
The Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2001, prohibit individuals with more than two children from applying for government positions.
The apex court, while endorsing the two-child norm, dismissed the appeal filed by ex-serviceman Ramji Lal Jat. Jat had sought a constable’s position in the Rajasthan Police on May 25, 2018, subsequent to his retirement from the military in 2017.
A bench led by Justice Surya Kant determined that Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which disqualifies candidates with more than two children born after June 1, 2002, is not discriminatory and aligns with constitutional principles.
The bench, which also included Justices Dipankar Datta and K V Vishwanathan, emphasized that the provision aims to encourage family planning and is thus consistent with constitutional values.
Jat’s candidacy was rejected under Rule 24(4) due to his having more than two children post-June 1, 2002, in accordance with the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2001.
Despite Jat’s appeal to the Rajasthan High Court, the court upheld his disqualification, stating that the rule in question pertains to policy matters and does not warrant judicial intervention.
he ex-serviceman, however, argued that while there are rules regarding the two-child eligibility norm, there are separate rules for the absorption of ex-servicemen that do not specify the condition of not having more than two children.
“Even if this is true,” the court responded, “such an argument does not strengthen the appellant’s case. It is undisputed that the appellant applied for the position of Constable in the Rajasthan Police, which is governed by the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989.
“These 1989 Rules are explicitly listed as Serial No.104 in the Schedule attached to the 2001 Rules. Therefore, we see no reason to overturn the decision made by the High Court,” the apex court stated in its judgment.
