In a landmark judgment, the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court exercised its parens patriae jurisdiction to direct the state to grant employment to a widowed mother of four from the Scheduled Caste (SC) community. Despite her meritorious performance in the recruitment process for the position of school lecturer, she was previously denied employment due to having more than two surviving children. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring equitable treatment and social justice, especially for individuals from marginalized communities.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a widowed SC woman and the sole breadwinner for her four children—one of whom has a disability—participated in the 2018 recruitment process for the position of school lecturer under the SC-Widow category. Despite securing a meritorious rank, her application was rejected solely because she had more than two surviving children, a criterion set by the state's employment regulations. This rejection prompted her to file a petition challenging the decision, arguing that similar relaxations had been granted to other widows under compassionate appointment frameworks, and denying her the same constituted unequal and discriminatory treatment.
Legal Framework and Amendments
At the time of the petitioner's application, Rajasthan's service rules imposed a two-child norm for eligibility in certain public employment positions. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, amendments were introduced in 2023, extending relaxation from the two-children norm to all widows, including divorcee women. The petitioner contended that this amendment, reflecting a progressive and inclusive approach, should be applied to her case to alleviate hardship and promote social justice.
Court's Analysis and Reasoning
Justice Sameer Jain, presiding over the case, emphasized the importance of departing from rigid procedural adherence in the interest of justice. He noted that excluding the petitioner solely on the basis of having more than two children, despite her socio-economic challenges, would violate constitutional guarantees provided under Articles 14 and 16, which ensure equality before the law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment, respectively.
The court recognized the petitioner's unique hardships:
Sole Breadwinner: As a widow, she is solely responsible for the upbringing of her four children, one of whom is disabled.
Marginalized Community: Her status as a member of the SC community highlights the systemic barriers she faces.
These factors warranted judicial intervention to address her unique hardship. The court opined that the petitioner's marginalized status and meritorious standing under the widow category demanded equal treatment under the law. Denying her claim would disregard the principles of fairness and perpetuate systemic inequities, especially for women from vulnerable communities. The court further emphasized that the principles of substantive equality require the state to recognize and accommodate the unique challenges faced by individuals in disadvantaged positions.
Parens Patriae Jurisdiction
Invoking the doctrine of parens patriae, which allows the state (or the court, in this context) to act as a guardian for those who are unable to care for themselves, the court adopted a merciful and sympathetic approach towards the petitioner. This doctrine empowers the judiciary to step in to protect the rights and welfare of individuals who are disadvantaged or marginalized. In this case, the court acted as a representative of the sovereign, ensuring that the petitioner's socio-economic hardships were duly considered, and justice was served.
Conclusion and Implications
The Rajasthan High Court's decision to grant employment to the petitioner sets a significant precedent in the realm of public employment and social justice. It underscores the judiciary's proactive role in interpreting laws and regulations in a manner that promotes inclusivity and addresses systemic inequities. By considering the petitioner's unique socio-economic challenges and her meritorious qualifications, the court ensured that justice was not only done but also seen to be done. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of flexibility and compassion in the application of rules, especially when dealing with individuals from marginalized communities.
In conclusion, the court's intervention in this case highlights the critical role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional principles of equality and fairness. By exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, the Rajasthan High Court ensured that a deserving individual was not unjustly denied an opportunity for employment due to rigid procedural norms. This decision not only provides relief to the petitioner but also sets a progressive precedent for future cases involving similar socio-economic challenges.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.