JODHPUR: The Rajasthan High Court on Monday directed the state government to appoint a scheduled caste (SC) widow as a school lecturer, recognising her right to employment after she was denied the position because she had more than two children who were alive.
The court, invoking its inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, held that the rejection of her candidature was contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
The petitioner, Sunita Dhawan, a widow and mother of two children, had qualified on merit under the SC-widow category for the post of school lecturer in 2015. However, her appointment was denied under the two-child norm, which disqualifies candidates with more than two surviving children born on or after June 1, 2002.
Justice Sameer Jain, while delivering the judgment, emphasised the need for a progressive interpretation of service rules, and said: “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 marginalised status and meritorious standing under the widow category demand equal treatment under the law.”
The court highlighted that the petitioner was the sole breadwinner for her family, which includes a child with special needs, making her exclusion from employment an unjustified hardship. It further noted that a 2023 amendment to service rules, which had extended the relaxation of the two-child norm to all widows and divorcees, should be applied liberally.
{{/usCountry}}The court highlighted that the petitioner was the sole breadwinner for her family, which includes a child with special needs, making her exclusion from employment an unjustified hardship. It further noted that a 2023 amendment to service rules, which had extended the relaxation of the two-child norm to all widows and divorcees, should be applied liberally.
{{/usCountry}}The state contended that the recruitment rules in force at the time of selection deemed the petitioner ineligible. However, the court ruled: “Welfare measures must be interpreted to achieve their intended objective of alleviating hardship and promoting social justice. Excluding widows facing significant socio-economic hardships, such as the petitioner, undermines the broader welfare objectives of such provisions.”
Exercising parens patriae jurisdiction (acting as a guardian for vulnerable citizens), the court directed the state to appoint the petitioner without any further delay. It clarified that while the appointment would not be granted with retrospective benefits, the decision must be implemented immediately.