Refusing To Defer Physical Test For Pregnant Candidate Forces Her To Choose Between Motherhood & Employment, Not Justified: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that refusing to postpone the physical efficiency test of a woman candidate in an advanced stage of pregnancy compels her to choose between bearing a child and employment, and interferes with her right of reproduction as well as her right to employment. It held that where the recruitment rules are silent on postponement and lay down no bar against it, the Commission has the power to postpone the test in an extraordinary circumstance, and cannot refuse merely because the rules carry no provision for it.The appellant had applied for the posts of Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard, governed by the U.P. Forest Department Lower Subordinate (Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard) Service Rules, 2015. The physical efficiency test required her to cover 14 kms. on foot in four hours.The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held,“The denial by the respondents of the postponement of PET to the appellant on account of her pregnancy, essentially forces a woman to have a choice of either bearing a child or employment, which cannot be permitted as the same interferes with both her rights, i.e. right of reproduction and right to employment and as such, the respondents were required to be more sympathetic and alive to the extraordinary situation.”The advertisement for the posts of Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard was issued on 12th September 2023. The appellant married in November 2023 and conceived in May 2025, while the selection was still under way. The written examination was held and she was declared successful on 8th January 2026. The physical efficiency test was scheduled from 10.02.2026 to 19.02.2026.On 27th January 2026, in the ninth month of her pregnancy, she informed the Controller of Examination about her health and asked that the test be put off. No response came. She moved the High Court, before the test was due, and on 18th February 2026 the Court gave the respondents time to file a short counter affidavit. At a meeting held the same day, the Commission turned down her request, holding that the Rules of 2015 made no provision for postponement.Before the Single Judge, the respondents submitted that the selection was almost over, that 332 women candidates had already cleared the medical examination against 709 advertised posts, and the final result was being sent to the department. The writ petition was dismissed on that footing, without the issue raised being gone into.In appeal, the appellant argued that two years had elapsed between the advertisement and the written examination, and that she had married and conceived in that interval in the natural course. A 14 kms. walk in four hours at nine months of pregnancy was neither possible nor medically advisable, and would have told on her health and that of the unborn child. It was argued that the Rules did not contemplate so extraordinary a situation could not by itself be a ground to refuse relief, nor could the fact that 332 women had already cleared the medical examination. Counsel for the Commission submitted that in absence of a provision the denial was justified. He informed the Court that appointments were yet to be made.The Court recorded at the outset that neither marriage nor pregnancy stood in the appellant's way.“…a married woman is not disqualified for appointment on the post of Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard and the fact that she is pregnant in itself is not a disqualification for participating in the selection process. Further, her pregnancy also cannot be treated as a bar for appointment under the provisions of Rules of 2015.”Motherhood, the Court said, is a natural part of a woman's life, and with the appellant having married and conceived during the two-year interval before the written examination, the Commission should have shown consideration and recognised what the test would have demanded of her. It observed that she had sought only a month's postponement after her delivery, and appointments had admittedly not been made even by the date of the hearing.“Once the Rules are silent on the aspect of providing postponement of the PET, i.e. there is no specific bar in this regard, the Commission has the power in the given extraordinary circumstance to have postponed the PET qua the appellant and denial on the ground of absence of any provisions in the Rules of 2015 also, cannot be sustained”The Court further held that the number of women who had cleared the medical examination was no reason to shut the appellant out of the test. If she cleared the test and the medical examination and stood in merit in her category, the consequences would follow, held the Court. Allowing the special appeal, the Court set aside the order of the Single Judge and allowed the writ petition. The respondents were directed to permit the appellant to undergo the physical efficiency test pursuant to the advertisement, and to conduct and complete it within four weeks. The Court observed that if she clears the test, she is...

Refusing To Defer Physical Test For Pregnant Candidate Forces Her To Choose Between Motherhood & Employment, Not Justified: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Refusing To Defer Physical Test For Pregnant Candidate Forces Her To Choose Between Motherhood & Employment, Not Justified: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers