DINESH MEHTA, J. - (1.) The grievance raised and questions involved in these three writ petitions are common, hence they are being decided conjointly. All the above mentioned petitioners were selected against the vacancies advertised for Safai Employees, but subsequently appointment orders issued to the petitioners of the first writ petition (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16572/2018) have been canceled, whereas petitioners involved in the other two writ petitions (D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.13489/2018 and 3475/2019), despite being selected, were not allowed to join duties. The reason for their rejection or denial is that they are having more than two children. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of DB Civil Writ Petition No.16572/2018 are being taken into consideration.
(2.) The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition invoking this Court's extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:- "a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction rule 9A of Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 inserted vide notification dated 11.04.2018 may be declared to be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Section 337(6) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 and may be quashed and set aside; b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction impugned order dated 24.09.2018 (Annex.5) cancelling the appointments of petitioners may be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside; c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioners as safai employee with all consequential benefits; d) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner; e) Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioners;"
(3.) The factual matrix within the precincts of the question raised and challenge laid in the instant writ petitions unfolds as under:- (2.1) The State of Rajasthan, Department of Local Self Govermnet framed the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the Safai Employees Rules, 2012" or "the Rules of 2012") in exercise of powers conferred to it, by Section 337 and 335 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2009"). These rules, which were promulgated vide notification dated 18.04.2012, came to be published in the Official Gazette on 04.05.2012 and came into force instantaneously. The Rules of 2012 deal with recruitment, appointment and terms of employment of Safai employees. Rule 9 thereof, which is relevant for the present purpose dealing with the procedure for direct recruitment, reads thus:- "9. Procedure for direct recruitment - The Chief Municipal Officer shall invite applications for direct recruitment through advertisement in the two state level daily newspapers and shall make appointment on the basis of either conducting written examination/interview/ merit/experience [lottery system amongst eligible candidates] or on the basis of one or more criteria's as mentioned above." (2.2) On 11.04.2018, the State Government issued a notification No.F.8(Ga)( )/Rules/LSG/12/8426 dated 11.04.2018, whereby a new Rule 9A had been inserted in the Rules of 2012, which provides that any person who has more than two children on or after 01.06.2002 shall not be eligible for appointment under the Rules of 2012. This rule is the bone of contention and thus, we deem it apt to reproduce the same, for ready reference:- "9A. Disqualification for appointment.- No candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service who has more than two children on or after 01.06.2002 Provided that : (i) the candidate having more than two children shall not be deemed to be disqualified for appointment so long as the number of children he/she has on 1 st June, 2002, does not increase. (ii) where a candidate has only one child from earlier delivery but more than one child are born out of a single subsequent delivery, the children so born shall be deemed to be one entity while counting the total number of children. (iii) the provision of this rule shall not be applicable to the appointment of a widow of the deceased employee on compassionate ground. (iv) while counting the total number of children of a candidate, the child born from earlier delivery and having disability, shall not be counted. (v) any candidate who performed remarriage which is not against any law and before such remarriage he is not disqualified for appointment under this rule, he shall not be disqualified if any child is born out of single delivery from such remarriage." (2.3) No sooner had the above referred notification dated 11.04.2018 come into being, than the respondent No.3 - Commissioner, Muncipal Council, Banswara issued an advertisement dated 13.04.2018, inviting applications for recruitment on the post of Safai Karmacharis (Safai employees). Apart from other conditions of eligibility, the said advertisement contained a condition postulating that any person having two or more children after 01.06.2002, shall be disqualified for the appointment. The said condition was drawn in the following terms:- "...Vernacular Text Omitted..." (2.4) While dealing with the case at hands, we must bear one fact in mind that as per the advertisement aforesaid, the selection was to be made by way of lottery, as envisaged under Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012. (2.5) The petitioners herein vied for the post of Safai employees pursuant to the above advertisement and were amongst the few fortunates, whose names were picked in the draw of lots. The petitioners, in turn, were issued appointment order(s) on 14.07.2018. (2.6) Petitioners' appointments however stood cancelled by the respondent No.3, vide a common order No.9924 dated 24.09.2016. The sole and common reason for such cancellation was that their number of children increased from two after 01.06.2002. (2.7) Faced with such situation, the petitioners have knocked at the doors of this Court invoking its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, challenging not only their termination order(s) dated 24.09.2018, but also the validity of Rule 9A, inserted vide notification dated 11.04.2018. (3) Having laid the factual and statutory canvas of the case, we deem it appropriate to trace the history of such legislation, so as to have a better perspective of the problem. ;