[2026:RJ-JD:1021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 107/2026 Minakshi Kumari D/o Raghunath Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Jugtaniyon Ki Dhani, Village - Aalpura, Tehsil -

Gudamalani, District - Barmer, Rajasthan 344031.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.

4. Superintendent Of Police, Pali, District - Pali.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda Mr. Nikhil Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

09/01/2026

1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard on final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.12.2025 (Annexure-6), wherein and whereby the petitioner was found to be physically unqualified in the physical standard test conducted by the respondents for the post of Constable in pursuance of the advertisement dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure-1).

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was pregnant while undergoing the selection process and she gave birth to her child on 18.11.2025. The petitioner qualified the written examination and was called for physical standard test on 13.12.2025. On 13.12.2025 the petitioner appeared before the authorities who conducted the physical standard test and she also produced a fitness certificate enabling her to participate in the physical standard test. The petitioner was found disqualified in the said physical standard test. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner, while appearing for the physical standard test on 13.12.2025, did not claim that she had given birth to her child on 18.11.2025 and she was medically unfit to participate in the physical standard test. Contrarily, she produced a fitness certificate claiming to be fit to undergo the physical standard test. Having produced the fitness certificate and having participated, on becoming disqualified, the petitioner challenged her disqualification in the present writ petition. It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioner suppressed the factum of production of fitness certificate before this Court, therefore, he seeks dismissal of the present writ petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, out of her own apprehension of being disqualified on being unfit as she delivered a baby on 18.11.2025, produced the fitness certificate that she was actually fit to participate in the physical standard test. It is also his contention that the advertisement condition itself clearly prescribes that there is an advisory to pregnant women candidates not to participate in the physical standard test within six months from the date of delivery.

When such advisory is issued, the petitioner’s participation and disqualification shall not come in way of allowing the petitioner to participate in the physical standard test. Therefore, he seeks a direction to the authorities to participate in the physical standard test within six months as advertised in the advertisement, upon production of physical fitness certificate.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner suppressed factum of production of physical fitness certificate and further, in terms of the advertisement conditions, the petitioner has not made any request on the date of physical standard test requesting to postpone her physical standard test by producing appropriate medical certificate. The petitioner also suppressed the factum of delivering her child while participating in the physical standard test, however, she produced a certificate of fitness