Rajasthan HC rejects challenge to rule restoring promotion consideration for employees with more than two children

The petitioners challenged the State’s notification dated 16 March 2023, issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, amending various service rules.

The amendments replaced the restriction that employees with more than two children on or after 1 June 2002 could not be considered for promotion for three recruitment years. They provided for consideration of certain employees for promotion from the date it became due and protected employees already promoted from reversion.

A coordinate Division Bench had rejected a challenge to the notification in Pradeep Kumar v. State of Rajasthan on 6 April 2026. The Court noted that the petitioners had not sought to have these petitions heard with that case.

1. Whether the notification dated 16 March 2023 amending the promotion provisions in the relevant service rules was liable to be invalidated on the grounds raised by the petitioners

2. Whether a coordinate Division Bench could reconsider the challenge after the same issue had been decided by a coordinate Bench in Pradeep Kumar

The notification was made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, which empowers the competent authority to make rules regulating recruitment and service conditions.

The Court applied the rule of judicial discipline that a decision of a coordinate Bench on a question of law should ordinarily be followed; if a later Bench considers that decision incorrect or has reason to differ, the proper course is to refer the issue to a larger Bench. It relied on Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of West Bengal, AIR 1960 SC 936; Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey, AIR 1962 SC 83; Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Harish Kumar Purohit, (2003) 5 SCC 480; and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1.

The Court considered the petitioners’ challenge to be substantially the same as the challenge already decided in Pradeep Kumar. That decision had rejected the challenge to the notification and held that, after the State removed the disqualification, restoration of promotions previously affected by it was legally justified.

Applying the rule of coordinate-Bench discipline, the Court declined to take a different view and held that the earlier decision governed the present batch.

Any pending applications were also dismissed.