'Forcing Women to Choose Between Motherhood and Career Cannot Be Permitted': Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that pregnancy cannot be used as a ground to deny a woman public employment, observing that forcing a candidate to choose between motherhood and her career violates her constitutional rights.

Holding that pregnancy is not a disqualification under the applicable recruitment rules, court directed the authorities to conduct a fresh Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for a woman candidate who was unable to appear earlier because she was in the advanced stage of pregnancy.

A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh passed the order while allowing an appeal against a single judge's decision that had dismissed the woman's writ petition challenging the rejection of her request to defer the PET for recruitment to the posts of Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard.

The recruitment process began with an advertisement issued in September 2023. However, the written examination was conducted only in November 2025, after a gap of more than two years. During this period, the candidate got married, conceived, and subsequently qualified the written examination. She was then asked to appear for the PET, which required candidates to complete a 14-km walk within four hours. As she was nine months pregnant, she sought postponement of the test, stating that undertaking the physical exercise would be medically unsafe.

The recruitment commission, however, rejected her request on the ground that the relevant service rules did not provide for postponement of the PET. The single judge also declined relief after noting that the recruitment process was nearing completion and several women candidates had already cleared the medical examination.

The division bench, however, held that neither marriage nor pregnancy disqualifies a woman from appointment as a Forest Guard or Wildlife Guard under the applicable rules.

Court observed that the real issue was whether a woman's right to seek public employment could be defeated because of an unforeseen circumstance such as pregnancy or childbirth during an ongoing recruitment process. It answered the question by holding that such a consequence would be legally impermissible.

What Did the High Court Say on Pregnancy and the PET?

The bench observed that motherhood is "a most natural phenomenon" in a woman's life and noted that the authorities ought to have acted with greater sensitivity, particularly because the recruitment process itself had been delayed by more than two years.

Court said it was expected of the commission to be "considerate and sympathetic" towards the candidate's physical condition instead of insisting that she undertake a 14-km walk during the final stage of pregnancy. It also noted that the candidate had not sought exemption from the PET but merely requested that it be postponed by about a month after delivery. Significantly, appointments had not yet been made when her request was considered.

Rejecting the commission's stand that the rules contained no provision for postponement, the bench held that the absence of an enabling provision could not justify denial of relief in an extraordinary situation. It ruled that since the rules did not expressly prohibit postponement, the commission possessed the authority to defer the PET in appropriate cases.

Court further observed that refusing postponement effectively compelled a woman to choose between bearing a child and securing public employment, a situation that "cannot be permitted" because it interferes with both her right to reproduction and her right to employment.

Allowing the appeal, the bench directed the authorities to conduct the woman's PET within four weeks. If she clears the PET and the remaining stages of the selection process and secures the required merit, she will be entitled to appointment with effect from the date a lower-ranked candidate in her category was appointed.

Court also directed that one post in the OBC women category be kept vacant until her result is declared.

Case Title: Komal Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Lucknow & Ors.

Order Date: July 22, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh