The Supreme Court upheld a Rajasthan rule that barred candidates with more than two children from applying for government jobs in the state. The Supreme Court last week dismissed a petition challenging the Rajasthan government's 2001 regulations, which prohibit a candidate from applying for a public position if he or she has more than two children.
Consult Verified Legal Experts
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
- • Startup Compliances
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
Experience
- • Audits
- • Trademark & other IP
- • Company Registration
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Consumer Protection
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Consumer Protection
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Cyber Crime
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Property Matter
- • Corporate Issues
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Corporate Issues
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Audits
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Matrimonial Disputes
- • Legal Notice
- • Succession Issue
Experience
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Money Recovery
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Money Recovery
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • Statutory Compliances
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Mutual or Contested Divorce
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Employment Matters
- • RERA Matters
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Cyber Crime
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
- • Cyber Fraud
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
Experience
- • Bail Matter
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
Experience
- • Court Marriage
Experience
- • RERA Matters
- • Case Transfer Matters
- • Cyber Crime
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
Experience
- • Property Matter
Experience
- • Property Matter
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
Experience
- • Agreements
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Case Transfer Matters
Experience
- • Insurance Matters
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
- • RERA Matters
Experience
- • Court Marriage
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Cyber Crime
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Anticipatory Bail
Experience
- • Rape & POCSO
- • Bail Matter
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Company Registration
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Cyber Fraud
- • Cyber Crime
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Employment Matters
- • Insurance Matters
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Adoption & Custody
- • Matrimonial Disputes
- • Legal Notice
Experience
- • Anticipatory Bail
- • Audits
- • Cheque Bounce
Experience
A bench led by Justice Surya Kant ruled that Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which states that "No candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service who has more than two children on or after June 1, 2002" is non-discriminatory and does not violate the Constitution. This court concluded that the categorization, which disqualifies candidates for having more than two live children, was nondiscriminatory and following the Constitution, because the goal of the regulation was to promote family planning.” the bench, which also included Justices Dipankar Datta and K V Vishwanathan, said.
Ram Lal Jat, an ex-serviceman who retired in 2017 and applied for a constable position in the Rajasthan Police in 2018, filed the plea. However, he was disqualified under Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which followed the rule established by the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2001, which states that "no candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the job who has more than two children on or after June 1, 2002."
Facts of the case related to the two-child policy for government jobs in Rajasthan:
Jat's candidature was rejected under Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, because he had more than two children after June 1, 2002, he was disqualified for public employment under the State, according to the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2001. He filed an appeal with the Rajasthan High Court, which denied his request, stating that the rule under which he was disqualified is policy-related and does not warrant court intervention. The ex-serviceman, on the other hand, contended that, in addition to the rules governing the two-child eligibility norm, there are rules for the absorption of ex-servicemen in cases where the requirement of having no more than two children is not defined.
Supreme Court's 2003 order on the two-child policy
The Supreme Court also cited its own 2003 order, which held that the classification, which barred candidates from having more than two living children, was non-discriminatory and violated the Constitution because the provision's purpose was to promote family planning. According to the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act of 1994, a person with more than two children is ineligible to run for office as a panch or member. The Supreme Court upheld this rule in Javed vs. the State of Rajasthan in 2003.
What the Supreme Court said:
In 2022, the complainant unsuccessfully challenged his disqualification in the Rajasthan High Court, prompting him to petition the Supreme Court. On February 20, Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and KV Viswanathan upheld the Rajasthan High Court order.
The Court held that such a plea does not help the appellant's case. It is indisputable that the appellant applied for the job of Constable in the Rajasthan Police, which is governed by the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989."The 1989 Rules are particularly noted in Serial No.104 of the Schedule appended to the 2001 Rules. In light of this, we see no reason to overturn the High Court's decision," the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling.
"This court concluded that the categorization, which disqualifies candidates for having more than two live children, was non-discriminatory and consistent with the Constitution because the goal of the provision was to promote family planning," the bench, which also included Justices Dipankar Datta and K V Vishwanathan, said.
Other states' two-child policies
It should be noted that Rajasthan is not the only state that enforces a two-child policy for local body elections and government jobs. Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Karnataka all have similar rules.
In 2021, the Uttar Pradesh government proposed a population control bill that, among other things, prohibited violators of the two-child policy from contesting local body elections or applying for government jobs.
The Sharks of Law educates individuals about legal issues and encourages critical thinking. You can contact our skilled Advocates if you have any legal questions.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
Adv Vipul Singh Raghuwanshi
Legal expert and contributor at Sharks of Law. Committed to providing clear and accessible legal guidance to everyone.
