2025 Supreme(Raj) 1405
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
Rekha Kumari Sen D/o Shri Ladu Ram Sen - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18535 of 2024
Decided On : 23-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sudesh Kasana
For the Respondent: Archit Bohra
A candidate who remarries and has children from that marriage is not disqualified if the children are born from a single delivery, as per the amended rules.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition for appointment on the post of ANM under OBC-NCL Female PH category - Petitioner scored higher marks than selected candidates but was denied appointment due to having three children, two of whom were from her husband's first marriage - Court held that petitioner is eligible under Rule 21(5)(iv) of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, as she gave birth to only one child after remarriage - The reason for non-inclusion was arbitrary and violated the petitioner's legal rights. (Paras 2, 4, 8, 11, 12)
(B) Legal eligibility - Court emphasized that a candidate who remarries and has children from that marriage is not disqualified if the children are born from a single delivery, as per the amended rules. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged her exclusion from the final select list for ANM despite being higher in merit than selected candidates, citing arbitrary denial based on her having three children, two from her husband's previous marriage.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner is eligible for appointment as she only had one child after remarriage and ruled that the denial of her appointment was arbitrary.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of excluding the petitioner based on her children's status and the interpretation of the relevant rules regarding eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the exemption in Rule 21(5)(iv) and cannot be disqualified based on the number of children from previous marriages.
Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to appoint the petitioner.
ORDER :
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the pleadings and material available on record carefully.
2. Instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by non- inclusion of her name in the final select list dated 04.09.2024 for grant of appointment on the post of ANM under OBC-NCL Female PH category, despite being higher in merit than the selected candidates of same category in the select list at Serial Nos. 3356, 3364, 3371, 3377, 3380 and 3381. Final select list dated04.09.2024 is enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure-7.
3. It has been pointed out that the petitioner scored 45.30 marks but in the final select list, the candidates belonging to the category of petitioner, and lower in merit have been selected and were granted appointment, hence, legal right of petitioner has been violated arbitrarily. From the select list (Ann-7), the candidates at Serial No. 3356, 3364, 3371, 3377, 3380 and 3381 have been shown to secure followings marks:-
| S. No. | Applicant’s Name | Selected Against Category | Total Marks |
| 3356 Ranu Varma | OBC-NCL-F-PH | 39.033 | |
| 3364 Sadhana Kumari Lodha | OBC-NCL-F-PH | 38.383 | |
| 3371 Chayana Khan | OBC-NCL-F-PH | 37.675 | |
| 3377 Nirmala Lodha | OBC-NCL-F-PH | 37.108 | |
| 3380 Deepa | OBC-NCL-F-PH | 36.317 | |
| 3381 Bharan Bai | OBC-NCL-F-PH | 35.450 |
4. Having perused the reply to the writ petition, the issue of petitioner being higher in merit than the selected candidates belonging to her category, referred in preceding paragraph, is no more quibble, but the reason of non-inclusion of petitioner in the final select list has been ascribed that she has three alive children and their birth date is beyond the cut-off date i.e. 01.06.2002. The name and date of birth of three children of petitioner has been indicated in Para No. 6 of the reply, which reads as under:-
| S. No. | Name of the Child | Date of Birth |
| 1. | Indar Sen | 21.08.2003 |
| 2. | Khushi Sen | 03.06.2005 |
| 3. | Khushal Sen | 21.07.2016 |
The respondent, relying upon the Circular dated 20.06.2001 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan has taken a plea that petitioner is ineligible due to having more than two children on or after 01.06.2002 and has rightly been denied appointment although falling higher in merit.
5. Petitioner having apprised with the reason for non-inclusion of her name in the final select list as detailed out by respondents in the reply to the writ petition, referred hereinabove, submitted her rejoinder clarifying the factual aspect of her three children that she entered into marriage with one Shri Norat Sen on 28.03.2015 and out of her wedlock, she gave birth to only one child on 21.07.2016. Other two children namely Indar Sen and Khushi Sen were delivered by the first wife of her husband Shri Norat Sen. Since first wife of husband of petitioner, namely Babita, had passed away on 16.07.2012, thereafter, he entered into second marriage with the petitioner. Thus, petitioner is second wife of Sh. Norat Sen and out of three children, other two children namely Indar Sen and Khushi Sen born on 21.08.2003 and 03.06.2005 belong to first wife Smt. Babita (now deceased). Since the case of petitioner is of re-marriage and after her marriage with Sh. Norat Sen, she gave birth only to one child, petitioner cannot be held ineligible and has denied the appointment on the ground of having three alive children post cut-off date i.e. 01.06.2002.
6. The factual aspect as detailed out and explained by the petitioner in rejoinder, in respect of three children, have not been denied/ disputed from the side of respondents.
7. In the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, as amended vide Notification dated 16.03.2023, Rule21 (5)(iv) reads as under:-
“(iv) any candidate who performed remarriage which is not against any law and before such the remarriage he is not disqualified for appointment under this sub-rule, he shall not be disqualified if any child is born out of single delivery from such remarriage