In Sunita Dhawan vs. State of Rajasthan (2025), Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition of a widow who sought appointment to the post of School Lecturer and held that rejection of her candidature on the sole ground of having more than two children is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which ensure equality and non-discrimination.
Justice Sameer Jain observed:“This Court as representative of the Sovereign as parens patriae has adopted the same standard that a reasonable and responsible parent would do.”
The petitioner, a woman candidate, in response to the advertisement of 2015 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the position of School Lecturer had submitted her application under SC- Widow category. The petitioner passed the examination with merit.
On scrutiny of her application form, the RPSC concluded that her candidature was ineligible because of having more than two surviving children on or after June 1, 2002.
The appellant approached the High Court.
The judgement reads: “Exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court considers it imperative to depart from rigid procedural adherence in the interest of justice. Article 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment and prohibits discrimination on various grounds, including caste and sex. The petitioner’s exclusion based on procedural requirements, despite her significant socioeconomic challenges, undermines these constitutional guarantees and necessitates judicial redress.”
The Court pointed out:, “The rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on the sole ground of having more than two children is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which ensure equality and non-discrimination. The petitioner’s marginalized status and meritorious standing under the widow category demand equal treatment under the law. Denying her claim disregards the principles of fairness and perpetuates systemic inequities, especially for women from vulnerable communities.”
In its conclusion, the Court clarified:“Notwithstanding anything above, it is made clear that the instant judgment is passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant matter and henceforth, ought not to be treated as a precedent." It is apparent that the conclusion is bizarre because it implies that the two children norm is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 only in this specific case!
No comments:
Post a Comment