1. To realize the value of -

ONE YEAR, ask a student who failed a grade;

ONE MONTH, ask a mother who gave birth to a premature baby;

ONE WEEK, ask the editor of a weekly newspaper;

ONE HOUR, ask the lovers who are waiting to meet;

ONE MINUTE, ask a person who missed the trophy;

ONE SECOND, ask a person who just avoided an accident; and

HALF A SECOND, ask the petitioner, who missed the post of Grade II Constable.

2. When children are the future and it is the duty of the parents as well as the society to nurture them and when the employed mother has the best opportunity of educating the child, will it be right to decline employment to a pregnant woman on the ground that her physical fitness during pregnancy is not a match as that of her counterparts, who are not similarly placed, is the issue raised in this writ petition.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to select the petitioner for employment as Grade II Police Constable / Jail Warden on taking a lenient view, which is equated to mercy.

4. The petitioner is a candidate to the common recruitment of Grade II Police Constable 2017-18, with enrollment No.5101840. The petitioner completed 100 Mts. running event in 18.20 seconds. As per the norms, she has to qualify in 100 mts. running event by completing the running within 17.50 seconds. Thus, by shortage of 0.30 seconds, the petitioner has been declared unsuccessful in the physical efficiency test.

5. The petitioner states that she was eight weeks pregnant on the day when the physical efficiency test was conducted and hence, she was not able to complete the running within the prescribed time.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the norms and procedures as prescribed in the notification and brochure are followed scrupulously and no deviation is permitted for any reason, whatsoever. It is pointed out that allowing such candidates will open flood gate for other disqualified candidates, which will hamper the recruitment process; it would also create a negative precedent and would affect the future selection process; already, provisional selection list as per the notified vacancies was published on 31.10.2018 and selected candidates were given appointment orders; therefore, it is not possible to provide employment to the petitioner at this stage on the ground of mercy.

7. Whether these contentions are acceptable is the issue to be considered.

8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relied upon the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.21107 of 2017 wherein this Court directed the petitioner therein to wait and participate in the next recruitment process.

8.1. This decision was rendered when the petitioner therein sought for a direction to permit the petitioner to participate in the physical fitness test after the delivery of the child; when that request was rejected by the authorities and on approaching this Court, this Court confirmed the rejection order of the respondents. But, this is a case where the petitioner has participated, but has been declared unsuccessful.

9. Whether a pregnancy woman participating in the physical efficiency test can be declared unsuccessful, just because she was able to cross 100 Mts. by taking extra 0.30 second.

10. The decision reported in the case of Laxmi Devi vs State (Home Department) and Ors, decided on 30 May, 2017, by the Rajasthan High Court, speaks about the problems involved in the employment of women candidates in state of Pregnancy, which reads as follows:-

"We would refer to a passage occurring at page 166 of Swamy's Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration. The said passage reads ad infra:-

"Employment of women candidates in state of Pregnancy-

(a) For appointment against posts carrying hazardous nature of duties- Where a pregnant woman candidate is to be appointed against a post carrying hazardous nature of duties, e.g., in Police Organizations, etc