Statutory omission of the two-child norm rule precludes disqualification for children born after the date of omission.

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

However, his candidature was subsequently rejected via a cancellation list on the grounds that he had a third son born after 26.01.2001, which the respondents claimed violated Rule 6(6) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961

The petitioner’s third child was born on 04.10.2017

Prior to the birth and the recruitment advertisement, the State Government had issued a circular dated 13.07.2017 omitting the said disqualifying sub-rule

1. Whether the disqualification for having more than two living children under Rule 6(6) of the Rules of 1961 was applicable to the petitioner’s candidature following the rule's omission by the State Government

The court examined Rule 6(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 26.01.2001

The court further applied the State Government Circular dated 13.07.2017, which omitted sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 from the Rules of 1961

The Court noted that the State Government formally omitted the disqualifying provision, Rule 6(6), on 13.07.2017

The amended advertisement for the post of Rozgar Sahayak was thereafter issued on 15.09.2017, with the application deadline set for 26.09.2017

The petitioner’s third child was born on 04.10.2017

The Court reasoned that since the disqualifying rule had been deleted months before the advertisement and the child's birth, the rule was non-existent at the time of the recruitment process

Consequently, when the respondents considered the petitioner’s eligibility pursuant to an objection filed in October 2017, the petitioner could not be held disqualified under a rule that was no longer in force

The Court held that the petitioner was not disqualified on the date of consideration as the restrictive sub-rule had been omitted

Respondent No. 4 was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case for appointment within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order