Candidature rejection based on the two-child norm is unsustainable following the omission of the disqualifying service rule.

The petitioner applied for the post of Rozgar Sahayak and was initially declared eligible

However, his candidature was later rejected via a cancellation list on the grounds that he had a third son born after January 26, 2001, which was deemed a violation of Rule 6(6) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961

The petitioner’s third child was born on October 4, 2017

Prior to this, on July 13, 2017, the State Government issued a circular omitting Rule 6(6) from the Rules of 1961

An amended advertisement for the post was subsequently issued on September 15, 2017

Following an objection filed by a third party on October 16, 2017, the authorities disqualified the petitioner

Whether the disqualification of the petitioner based on Rule 6(6) of the Rules of 1961 was valid given that the rule had been omitted prior to the birth of the child and the recruitment process

sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961, which stipulated that no candidate shall be eligible for appointment if they have more than two living children, one of whom is born on or after January 26, 2001

State Government's circular dated July 13, 2017, which omitted the aforementioned sub-rule (6)

The court found that the statutory disqualification under Rule 6(6) was omitted by the State on July 13, 2017

The petitioner’s third child was born on October 4, 2017, nearly three months after the rule ceased to exist

Furthermore, the recruitment advertisement was issued on September 15, 2017, and the deadline for applications was September 26, 2017—both dates falling after the omission of the rule

The court reasoned that since the disqualifying provision was not in force at the time of the child's birth or the recruitment process, it could not be invoked to reject the petitioner's candidature

The court concluded that the respondent authorities erred in applying a defunct rule to the petitioner’s case

The court held that the petitioner was not disqualified on the date his case was considered because Rule 6(6) had already been omitted

The court directed Respondent No. 4 (Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Takhatpur) to reconsider the petitioner’s case for appointment within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order