Widows Applying on Merit Cannot Be Denied Relaxation Under Two-Child Norm: Rajasthan High Court

Differentiating Between Widows Based on Mode of Appointment Violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution - Rajasthan High Court ruled that widows applying for government jobs on merit are entitled to the same relaxation from the two-child norm as those applying under compassionate appointment.

Justice Sameer Jain, while striking down the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature, observed: "A widow’s right to employment cannot be curtailed merely because she is applying on merit rather than under compassionate grounds. Any such differentiation is arbitrary and unconstitutional."

The Court emphasized that the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2023, had extended the relaxation to all widows, and thus, denying the petitioner her rightful appointment was legally untenable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, Sunita Dhawan, a widow belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, applied for the post of School Lecturer under the widow category following an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) on October 16, 2015. Having secured a place in the merit list, she was later declared ineligible through a letter dated December 11, 2018, on the ground that she had more than two surviving children after June 1, 2002, in violation of Rule 21(4) of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1970.

Challenging this rejection, the petitioner contended: "A disabled child should not be counted under the two-child norm as per the notification dated February 28, 2011. Excluding my disabled child, I should be deemed eligible."

She further argued: "It is irrational and discriminatory to allow relaxation to widows applying under compassionate appointment while denying the same to those applying on merit. Both categories of widows are equally vulnerable."

During the pendency of the litigation, the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2023, introduced on March 16, 2023, removed the restriction of relaxation only to widows under compassionate appointment.

Despite this, the State of Rajasthan, defending its decision, argued: "Even if the disabled child is excluded from the count, the petitioner still has three children, which exceeds the permissible limit. At the time of her application, the rules did not provide for such relaxation."

The State also contended that since the recruitment process had already concluded, judicial intervention would be unwarranted.

Amendment in 2023 Extends Relaxation to All Widows – Petitioner’s Rejection Unjustified
The Court categorically held that the 2023 amendment to the service rules was a beneficial provision and should be applied liberally.

“The amendment reflects a progressive and inclusive approach. By removing the earlier restriction that limited relaxation to compassionate appointments, it ensures equal opportunities for all widows.”

Since the petitioner’s case was pending at the time of this amendment, she was entitled to the benefit of the relaxed rule.

“When the law evolves to correct historical injustices, courts must ensure that those who were previously disadvantaged benefit from such progressive changes.”

Thus, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was not only legally flawed but also contrary to the very objective of the amendment.

Violation of Articles 14 & 16 – Discriminatory Treatment Between Widows Applying on Merit and Compassionate Grounds
The Court unequivocally ruled that differentiating between widows based on the mode of appointment was unconstitutional.

"A widow applying for a job on merit should not be treated differently from a widow applying under compassionate appointment. Such artificial classifications defeat the purpose of protective legislation and violate the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16."

It further emphasized that widows applying on merit were in a stronger position than those seeking compassionate appointment and should not be denied benefits that were granted to the latter.

“The Constitution does not permit arbitrary classifications that disadvantage one vulnerable group over another. Equality in public employment means that similarly placed individuals must be treated alike.”

Beneficial Legislation Must Be Interpreted Liberally to Achieve Its Purpose
The Court underscored the importance of interpreting welfare-oriented laws in a manner that benefits disadvantaged sections of society.

"The spirit of beneficial legislation is to remove systemic barriers, not create new ones. A rigid interpretation of service rules defeats the very purpose of social justice measures."

Given that the petitioner was a widow, belonged to an SC community, and was raising a specially-abled child, the Court held:

“The law must be interpreted in a way that alleviates hardship, not exacerbates it. The denial of employment to the petitioner would only deepen the vulnerabilities she already faces.”

High Court’s Power Under Article 226 to Rectify Arbitrary Actions
The State argued that the recruitment process had already concluded, making judicial intervention unnecessary. However, the Court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, stating:

"The High Court’s power under Article 226 is not confined to correcting past wrongs but extends to ensuring that public authorities act fairly and in accordance with constitutional principles."

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Common Cause v. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 1665), the Court reaffirmed: “The High Court has the jurisdiction to issue appropriate writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for ensuring that public bodies discharge their duties in accordance with the law.”

Thus, the Court held that the petitioner's case warranted judicial intervention to prevent arbitrary exclusion.

Parens Patriae Doctrine – Judiciary’s Role in Protecting the Vulnerable
The Court also relied on the Parens Patriae doctrine, under which the State and the judiciary act as guardians for disadvantaged individuals.

"A widow struggling to raise four children, including a disabled child, deserves judicial protection. If the Court does not act as a guardian, she and her children will be left without recourse."

Referring to Adil Sajeer Ansari v. University of Delhi ((2021) 2 HCC Del 272), the Court stressed: “Judicial intervention must be exercised when inaction by the State leads to hardship for vulnerable citizens.”

The Rajasthan High Court, considering the socio-economic hardship faced by the petitioner, allowed the writ petition and directed the State of Rajasthan to appoint her as a School Lecturer under the widow (SC) category.

"The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner and grant her appointment without further delay. However, the benefits of the appointment shall not accrue retrospectively."

The judgment, however, was specific to the peculiar facts of the case and was not to be treated as a precedent.

“Law must be tempered with justice. A rule that denies a widow her right to employment despite a beneficial amendment serves no legitimate purpose.”

Date of Judgment: January 24, 2025