The court ruled that the rejection of a widow's candidature based on the number of children is discriminatory, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment and liberal interpretation of welfare provisions under constitutional guarantees.

Judgment :

(SAMEER JAIN, J.)

1. The present petition is filed assailing the letter dated 11.12.2018 whereby, respondents have declared the candidature of the petitioner as ineligible, for the reason that she has more than two surviving children on or after 01.06.2002 and following prayers have been made: -

“(i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction quashing and setting aside the letter/order dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure – 15) whereby petitioner widow has been declared ineligible for post of School Lecturer.

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Respondents to appoint petitioner-widow as School Lecturer forthwith with all consequential benefits with interest @ 18%p.a.”

2. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the essential material facts and particulars for adjudication of the controversy are that the petitioner, a women candidate, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.10.2015, published by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, ‘RPSC’) inviting applications from eligible candidates, for appointment on the post of School Lecturer; submitted her application under SC- Widow category. The petitioner duly qualified the examination securing merit.

3. Thereafter, successful candidates were required to submit an application form, furnishing necessary details, in order to determine eligibility. Consequently, on scrutiny of the application form of the petitioner, the RPSC, declared her candidature as ineligible vide letter dated 11.12.2018; for having more than two surviving children on or after 01.06.2002 stating that as per terms and conditions, specifically stipulated in the advertisement, rendering such a candidate ineligible for appointments.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted the fact that the petitioner is mother to four children, one of whom is disabled. However, the petitioner challenged the validity of letter dated 11.12.2018 contending that the said letter contravenes the Notification dated 28.02.2011. It was further submitted that, pursuant to the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Government introduced a proviso in the said notification stipulating that while determining the number of children of a candidate, a child born from an earlier delivery and having a disability shall not be included in the count.

5. Furthermore, it was submitted that the respondents have acted in a discriminatory manner by refusing to consider the petitioner’s candidature under the widow category. It was contended that while widows applying under the Compassionate Appointment framework were granted relaxation from the two- children norm, the petitioner, despite securing merit in the widow category, is arbitrarily denied similar relaxation, amounting to unequal and discriminatory treatment. Additionally, it was submitted that the widows seeking regular appointment were not extended the same relaxation, thereby highlighting discriminatory application of the governing Rules and statutes.

6. Further, it was submitted that widows seeking regular appointment on merit, stood on a better footing than widow seeking Compassionate Appointment, therefore, the petitioner should not be discriminated against while granting relaxation qua two child norm.

7. Additionally, during the currency of litigation, Government amended various provisions of service rule vide Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2023 (for short “Rules of 2023”) dated 16.03.2023, whereby relaxation which was restricted to widows covered under compassionate appointment, has been extended to all widows including the divorcee women.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that interpretation of the Rule 21(4) of the Rules of 1970 and allied amended provisions, clearly implies that candidate having more than two surviving children on or after 01.06.2002, shall be declared ineligible for the appointment.

9. It was further submitted that even if one of the petitioner’s children were to b