CASE NAME:
Ramji Lal Jat vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
CASE DATE:
20th February, 2024
PARTIES:-
Appellant: Ram Lal Jat
Respondent: The State of Rajasthan
BENCH/JUDGE:-
Justice Surya Kant
Justice Dipankar Dutt
Justice KV Vishwanathan
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:-
Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989:-
This rule disqualifies candidates for public employment, specifically in the Rajasthan Police, if they have more than two children after June 1, 2002.
Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2001:-
This amendment provides the disqualifying condition that “no candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service who has more than two children on or after 01.06.2002.”
SUBJECT:-
The case involves an ex-serviceman denied a Police Constable position in Rajasthan due to having more than two children post-June 1, 2002, as per the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules. The appellant challenged this in the High Court, which rejected the claim. The Supreme Court upheld the decision, citing a precedent supporting the constitutionality of such provisions. The appellant claimed that no such condition was present in ex-servicemen absorption rules. The Court rejected the argument, leading to the dismissal of the present appeal.
OVERVIEW:-
In this case, the appellant, an ex-serviceman who retired in January 2017, applied for the position of Police Constable in the Rajasthan Police in May 2018. However, his candidature was rejected based on Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. The rule stated that candidates with more than two children after June 1, 2002, were disqualified for public employment under the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2001. The appellant challenged this decision in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, arguing that the rule was a matter of policy and should be subject to judicial review. The High Court, in its judgment dated October 12, 2022, rejected the appellant's claim, stating that the rule falls within the realm of policy and does not warrant interference by the Court. The Supreme Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel and examining the material on record granted the leave to hear the case before the court.
CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT:-
- The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the disqualifying rule on the number of children was a policy matter subject to judicial review.
- He contended that rules governing ex-servicemen absorption did not specify the restriction on the number of children.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:-
The court observed that:-
- The disqualifying rule on the number of children was upheld, drawing parallels with a similar provision related to Panchayat elections.
- The Court emphasised on the specific application of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, which incorporated the disqualifying rule under the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2001, to the appellant's case and rejected his argument concerning the absence of such conditions in rules governing the absorption of ex-servicemen.
JUDGMENT:-
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the High Court. It concluded that the The court upheld the constitutionality of the disqualifying rule concerning the number of children, as per the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 and the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2001, was constitutionally valid. The appellant's arguments were rejected. The court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision.
CONCLUSION:-
The appellant, an ex-serviceman vying for a Police Constable role in Rajasthan, faced disqualification due to rules restricting candidates with more than two children. Despite the appellant's arguments on the policy nature of the rule and the absence of such conditions in ex-servicemen absorption rules, the Supreme Court upheld the decision. The court affirmed the constitutionality of the disqualifying rule, highlighting its specific application under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the High Court.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
