A condition in an advertisement prohibiting pregnant women from participating in a recruitment process is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

Arun Bhansali, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to call the petitioner for PST/PET and appoint her on the post of Constable (General) pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2018.

2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner participated in the recruitment for Constable (General) pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2018; the result of the written examination was declared, wherein the petitioner scored 44.25 marks and was called for PST/PET on 02.09.2018 vide Annex. 4. However, as the petitioner had given birth to a child on 18.08.2018, she was not in physical condition to participate in the PST/PET and claims to have sent a representation to the respondents for postponing her PST/PET, however, the same was not accepted and the petitioner on account of non-participation in the PET/PST could not get selected.

3. Submissions have been made that this Court in Raju Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No. 13486/2018, decided on 28.09.2018, pertaining to the same recruitment, relying on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Laxmi Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : DBCWP No. 18808/2015, decided on 30.05.2017 at Jaipur Bench, ordered for extension of period for undergoing PET/PST by the petitioners therein on account of their pregnancy and it was further directed to extend the time for PST/PET by sixty days from the date of their delivery.

4. Further submissions have been made that the post of Constable (General) in petitioner's category is vacant and therefore, the petitioner may be granted one opportunity to undergo the PST/PET and as a result, if she falls within the merit be placed in the waiting list/reserve list and she may be accorded appointment in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that the stipulation in the advertisement was specific, whereby the candidates, who were pregnant at the time/physically unfit to undertake PET, were specifically debarred from further participation in the recruitment and therefore, the petitioner on that count alone is not entitled to seek any relief.

6. Further submission has been made that the plea raised regarding making representation for extension in time for PET/PST was never made by the petitioner and therefore also, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

7. Though a submission has been made in the reply to the writ petition that no post in the category of the petitioner is vacant, a reply to the rejoinder has been filed, inter-alia, indicating that on account of the fact that 05 candidates (02-General, 01-OBC, 01-SC & 01-ST) were not found medically fit in the medical test and were not given appointment and one selected candidate of OBC (Ex-serviceman) category did not join the post, 06 posts remained vacant due to the said reason and that the department has initiated review proceedings as per the provisions of standing order No. 12/2018 for filling of the remaining vacant posts from the remaining candidates of the combined select list and the same is still pending.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. The facts are not in dispute, wherein the petitioner had participated in the written examination pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2018 and obtained more marks than the cut-off and therefore, was called for PST/PET on 02.09.2018.

10. As based on the documents produced by the petitioner alongwith the writ petition pertaining to her pregnancy and the date of birth of the child were not very clear, the respondents were directed by order dated 29.05.2019 to file a specific reply/response to the contentions raised in the writ petition regarding petitioner's pregnancy/delivery on the date indicates in the writ petition, to which a specific reply has been filed post investigation that the averments made in this regard were correct, th