Allahabad High Court pregnancy ruling: woman cannot be denied public employment

The Allahabad High Court has said pregnancy cannot be a reason to deny a woman public employment, holding that forcing a woman to choose between motherhood and a job violates both her reproductive rights and her right to livelihood. The court made the observation while allowing a plea by a candidate whose request to defer a physical efficiency test for Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard recruitment was rejected during her pregnancy.

Setting aside the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission’s decision and an earlier single-judge order, the court directed the commission to hold the candidate’s physical efficiency test within four weeks. It also said that if she clears the remaining stages, she must be given appointment with all consequential benefits from the same date as a lower-ranked candidate in the OBC women category.

The order was passed on July 22 by a Lucknow bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh in a special appeal filed by Komal Jaiswal. She had challenged the UPSSSC’s refusal to defer her physical efficiency test after her writ petition was dismissed by a single judge.

Jaiswal had applied for the 2023 Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard recruitment. After qualifying the written examination, she was scheduled to appear for the physical efficiency test in February 2026. As she was nine months pregnant at the time, she sought postponement of the 14-km walking test until after childbirth. The commission rejected her request, saying the recruitment rules had no provision for deferring the test.

The bench said, “The denial by the state and the commission 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, that is right of reproduction and right to employment.” The court also held that “a woman’s marital status or pregnancy cannot be treated as a disqualification for public employment”.

The court said that since the rules did not expressly bar postponement of the physical efficiency test, the commission should have taken a humane and sensitive view in such exceptional circumstances. It also noted that more than two years had passed between the recruitment advertisement and the written examination, during which marriage and pregnancy were natural life events, and said penalising a woman for such circumstances would be against the principles of equality and fairness.

The bench further directed that one post in the OBC women category be kept vacant until the exercise is completed. In sum, the court held that pregnancy cannot be used to shut a woman out of public employment and ordered the commission to give Jaiswal a fresh chance to take the test.

– Ends