Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.
Palivela Nagadurga - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5199 of 2025
Decided On : 07-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15(3), 16, 21, and 42 - Writ petition seeking to declare the action of the respondents in conducting physical tests for recruitment as illegal and discriminatory against a recently delivered woman petitioner - Court emphasized the need for equal opportunity and level playing field for women undergoing pregnancy - Petitioner was denied a fair chance to participate in the physical efficiency test due to biological reasons. (Paras 1, 7, 10)
(B) Equal Opportunity - The court recognized that a pregnant woman should not be disadvantaged in employment opportunities due to her biological condition, affirming that reasonable accommodations should be made. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having delivered a baby shortly before the scheduled physical efficiency test, requested deferment but participated nonetheless, failing to meet the required time for the test. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner should be allowed to participate in the physical efficiency test after the final written examination, considering her circumstances and the precedent of accommodating other women in similar situations. (Paras 10, 11)
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner should be granted a second chance to participate in the physical efficiency test due to her recent childbirth and whether the respondents' actions were discriminatory. (Paras 1, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that biological reasons should not disadvantage the petitioner in competing for employment, emphasizing the need for equal treatment of women in recruitment processes. (Paras 7, 10)
Result: Writ petition disposed of directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the physical efficiency test after the final written examination.
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in conducting a Physical Measurement Test (PMT), Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for the recently delivered woman petitioner on 03.01.2025 on par with others as part of the direct recruitment for the posts of SCT PCs (Civil) (Men & Women) Constable without considering the request of the petitioner at the 2nd respondent board office and at the event’s venue as well to conduct the events once petitioner is fit to participate as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Art 14, 15(3), 16, 21 and 42 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to grant time to the Petitioner herein until she is fit and allow her to participate in the further selection process without insisting on Physical Efficiency Test (PET)/Physical Measurement Test to complete, by setting aside the petitioners PMT/PET Performance Report dated 03.01.2025 in the interest of justice and to pass such other orders.”
2. (a) The 2nd respondent issued notification dated 28.11.2022 for the recruitment of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constables (Civil) (Men & Women). The selection process consists of three phases, out of which, the petitioner participated in the preliminary written test and successfully cleared the same, and further, the petitioner attempted physical efficiency test. Though notification was issued on 28.11.2022 and preliminary written test was conducted on 22.01.2023, physical measurements test and physical efficiency tests were not conducted immediately and came to be deferred twice. By press release, the same was tentatively scheduled from 13.03.2023 and was deferred later again by press release dated 10.03.2023. The same was once again scheduled but deferred later. Ultimately the respondents issued press release on 12.12.2024 scheduling the aforementioned tests to be held from 30.12.2024 to 01.02.2025.
(b) In the interregnum, petitioner has delivered a baby boy on 28.08.2024, therefore, she made oral request requesting the respondents to defer her participation in the aforesaid physical measurement test and physical efficiency test to some other date since she delivered baby boy. As there was no response, the petitioner has participated in the aforesaid events which have commenced from 30.12.2024 and participated on 03.01.2025. Though the petitioner has cleared physical measurement test, she could not clear Physical Efficiency Test. The Physical Efficiency Test for women candidates, in terms of 20C of the notification, prescribes that the candidate has to undergo and qualify in 1600 meters run within 10 minutes 30 seconds and one out of two events of 100 meters, run to be completed in 18 seconds or long jump clearing minimum of 2.75 meters. The petitioner initially attempted 1600 meters but she could not complete it within the prescribed time of 10 minutes 30 seconds and she completed the run in 11 minutes 16 seconds, thereby she was not qualified.
(c) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation dated 15.02.2025 to the 2nd respondent requesting to allow her to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test once again. As the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Heard Smt.T.Rajitha, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – I for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though notification has been issued on 28.11.2022 fixing the schedule of events such as preliminary written examination followed by physical measurement test and physical efficiency test, the written examination was conducted on 22.01.2023, however, the other two qualifying tests were not conducted and came to be deferred twice, however, ultimately they were held from 30.12.2024 to 01.02.2005. Because of her pregnancy and giving birth to a child on 28.08.2024, the petitioner could no
Pregnant women should not be disadvantaged in recruitment processes due to biological reasons, and reasonable accommodations must be made to ensure equal opportunity.
Article 226 are designed for service of the lowly numbers in their grievances if the subject belongs to the Court's province and the remedy is appropriate to the judicial process.
Any medical condition, including appendicitis, does not entitle candidates to be re-examined for physical tests.
Unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge the criteria/rules of selection after participating in the recruitment process. Different criteria for male and female candidates can be based on their physic....
Failure to comply with specific instructions for conducting PST/PET and failure to inform the authorities about health issues in a timely manner may lead to dismissal of a petition seeking re-appeara....
In the absence of a specific provision allowing for a second chance for the PET in the recruitment process for Constables, the Court cannot grant such a chance to candidates who missed the PET due to....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
