In the case of Ramji Lal Jat v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., the candidate’s candidacy for the post of constable was rejected under Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 as he had more than two children after 01.06.2002. The High Court upheld this decision stating that the rule falls under policy matters not subject to judicial interference. The candidate appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that similar conditions were not applied to ex-servicemen. However, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision referencing its earlier judgment supporting such eligibility conditions for Panchayat elections. It emphasized that the candidate applied for a position governed by specific rules and found no reason to interfere.
CASE DETAILS:
Ramji Lal Jat v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 2744 of 2024
Supreme Court
Coram: Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and KV Viswanathan.
BRIEF FACTS:
- The candidate’s candidacy was rejected based on Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 as he had more than two children after 01.06.2002.
- The High Court dismissed the appellant’s claim stating that the rule in question which led to the appellant’s disqualification pertains to policy matters and does not warrant interference by the court.
- In response to the High Court’s decision, the candidate filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court.
OBSERVATIONS:
The Supreme Court citing its earlier judgment in Javed and others v. State of Haryana and others (2003) 8 SCC 369 upheld a provision similar to the one in question which was introduced as an eligibility condition for contesting Panchayat elections.
Rejecting the candidate’s argument regarding the absence of a similar condition in the rules governing the absorption of ex-servicemen, the Court stated that such a plea does not strengthen the appellant’s case. It emphasized that the appellant applied for recruitment to the post of Constable in Rajasthan Police which is governed by the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. These rules are specifically listed in the Schedule appended to the 2001 Rules. Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court’s decision.
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling which rejected the petition of the retired ex-serviceman who had sought employment as a police constable in the State of Rajasthan. The Court determined that Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 which states that no candidate can be appointed to the service if they have more than two children on or after 01.06.2002 is non-discriminatory and does not contravene the Constitution.
