Rejection Of Candidature On Sole Ground Of Having More Than Two Children Contrary To Articles 14 & 16 Of Constitution: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court was considering a petition assailing a letter declaring the candidature of the petitioner as ineligible as she had more than two surviving children.

The 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.
The petition, before the High Court, was filed assailing the letter whereby the respondents declared the candidature of the petitioner as ineligible, for the reason that she had more than two surviving children on or after June 1, 2002.
The Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain asserted, “This Court as representative of the Sovereign as parens patriae has adopted the same standard that a reasonable and responsible parent would do.”
Advocate Sunil Samdaria represented the Petitioner while Advocate Avinash Choudhary represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a female candidate, in pursuance of the advertisement issued in 2015 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) inviting applications from eligible candidates, for appointment to the post of School Lecturer, submitted her application under SC- Widow category. The petitioner duly qualified the examination securing merit. Consequently, on scrutiny of the application form of the petitioner, the RPSC, declared her candidature as ineligible for having more than two surviving children on or after June 1, 2002.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court. Additionally, during the currency of litigation, the Government amended various provisions of service rule vide Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2023 whereby relaxation which was restricted to widows covered under compassionate appointment, was been extended to all widows including the divorcee women.
Reasoning
The Bench observed that by removing the earlier restriction that was limited to compassionate appointments under specific rules, the amendment provides a broader and more equitable interpretation, aligning with the welfare objectives of such provisions. It was also noticed that the petitioner, as the sole bread-earner of her family, shoulders the responsibility of supporting and upbringing of four children, including one with a disability.
“Her status as a member of the Scheduled Caste (SC) community further highlights the systemic barriers she faces, warranting judicial intervention to address her unique hardship. The petitioner’s circumstances exemplify the need for equitable and inclusive consideration in public employment opportunities”, it added. The Bench also said, “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 Bench further highlighted, “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.”
The High Court was of the view that while the petitioner did not apply under the specific framework of compassionate appointment, her exclusion from the widow category due to the proviso restricting exceptions to those under compassionate appointments must be scrutinized for its reasonableness. The Court further recognized the fact that if it does not act as a guardian to the petitioner, a poor lady along with her children shall be forced to be hand to mouth.
Thus, the Bench directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and grant appointment to her on the said post under her respective category without further ado, and benefits qua the said appointment shall not accrue retrospectively. “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 concluded.
Cause Title: Sunita Dhawan v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:3012)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Sunil Samdaria, Arihant Samdaria
Respondents: Advocates Avinash Choudhary, Rahul Gupta, Aditya Raj Dhaka , AAG B.S. Chhaba, Advocate Amit Lubhaya