Back
Rules Pregnant Candidates Deserve Postponement for Mandatory Physical Efficiency Test Screenings
The has landmarked a significant ruling regarding the rights of women in public sector recruitment. In , a comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held that denying a pregnant woman's request to postpone her Physical Efficiency Test (PET) is not only but forces an unfair choice between motherhood and professional ambition.
Case Background
The appellant, Komal Jaiswal, applied for the post of Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard in . While the selection process faced a two-year delay, the appellant married and conceived. She successfully cleared the written examination but reached her ninth month of pregnancy by the time the PET—which mandated a grueling 14-kilometer walk in four hours—was scheduled in . Despite seeking a short postponement for her physical recovery, the rejected her plea, citing a lack of specific provisions in the Lower Subordinate (Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard) Service Rules, 2015.
The Legal Clash
The respondents argued that the selection process was advanced, with 332 women having already cleared the test, and that the absence of a provision for such deferment in the 2015 Rules justified the rejection. Conversely, the appellant’s counsel contended that pregnancy is a natural, temporary state and that the rigid adherence to rules during an extraordinary situation effectively penalized the candidate for experiencing a natural, protected biological life event.
Legal Analysis
The Court observed that the Commission’s refusal was untenable. It noted that the 2015 Rules do not explicitly bar or forbid postponement. The Court emphasized that pregnancy cannot be treated as a for appointment. Furthermore, the bench held that forcing an applicant to undergo a physically strenuous test late in pregnancy interfered with both her and her constitutionally protected in public employment.
Key Observations
The judgment highlighted the societal and legal necessity of accommodating motherhood within public recruitment:
-
"Motherhood is a most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman... it was expected of the Commission to be considerate and sympathetic towards the appellant."
-
"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."
-
"When the Rules are silent on the aspect of providing postponement... the Commission has the power in the given extraordinary circumstance to have postponed the PET."
The Court’s Decision
Ultimately, the set aside the of the petition. The Court directed the respondents to arrange a specialized, individual PET for the appellant within four weeks. In a protective measure for her career, the bench ordered that one post in the OBC woman category be held vacant until the appellant’s result is declared. The judgment mandates that if she qualifies, her appointment relative to her peers shall remain unaffected by the delay, safeguarding her seniority and merit-based position. This decision sets a vital precedent for administrative bodies to prioritize human rights and gender sensitivity over inflexible bureaucratic interpretations.
