REKHA PALLI, J(ORAL)

1. The facts of this case remind us of the famous words of Ban Ki Moon, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, “Achieving gender equality requires the engagement of women and men, girls and boys. It is everyone’s responsibility”. Despite the timeless wisdom of these words, the present case reveals that meaningful progress in achieving gender equality remains limited till date.

2. The petitioner who was an aspirant for joining as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force/Railway Protection Special Force [RPF/RPSF], having applied for the said post pursuant to the employment notice No. 01/2018 issued by the respondents has been compelled to knock at the doors of this Court as, despite her name having been placed in the merit list, she was denied appointment merely because she was unable to appear in the Physical Efficiency Test and Physical Measurement Test conducted on 20.04.2019 on account of her pregnancy.

3. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, it may be apposite to note the brief factual matrix as emerging from the record.

4. Upon the respondents issuing an employment notice bearing no.01/2018 in June, 2018 inviting applications for the post of Constable (Male and Female) in the RPF/RPSF, the petitioner submitted an application for the post of Constable before the last date which was 30.06.2018. The Computer Based Test (CBT) was, as per the advertisement, required to be held in September/October, 2018, but the same was finally conducted on 05.02.2019, in which the petitioner appeared and secured 72.67 marks, which were much higher than the cutoff marks of 64.16. Pursuant thereto, she was required to appear in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Measurement Test (PMT) and Document verification on 20.04.2019. Being in the advanced stage of her pregnancy, the petitioner approached the respondents with a request to accommodate her by postponing her PET as it included 800 meters run, a long jump and a high jump.

5. Upon being verbally informed by the respondents that her request could not be acceded to as the recruitment process was required to be completed in time, the petitioner approached this Court on 09.04.2019 i.e., much before 20.04.2019, the date on which the PET was scheduled to be conducted. On 12.04.2019 when the writ petition was taken up for preliminary consideration, learned counsel for the respondents accepted notice and was granted time to take instructions. It, however, appears that the matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time and consequently, the petitioner was unable to appear in the PET and has, therefore, been deprived of being appointed to the post of Constable in RPF/RPSF, for which post she was found meritorious in the CBT conducted way back in February, 2019.

6. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondents were made aware that the petitioner could not appear in the PET on account of being in the advanced stage of her pregnancy, they ought to have postponed the PET to a suitable date, especially when the test included activities such as 800m run, high jump and long jump, which a pregnant woman could not perform. He further submits that when the petitioner applied for appointment in the said recruitment process, she was not aware as to when the PET could be conducted as even in the past, despite having invited applications for the post of Constable in 2016, the respondents did not initiate the selection process for the same till as late as 2019. In support of his plea that the petitioner being a married woman could not have been penalized merely because of her pregnancy and that too by ignoring her high marks in the CBT, he places reliance upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench in Sharmila Yadav v Union of India & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12680. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to forthwith appoint the petitioner with all consequenti