Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Separate tests can and should be held later for advanced pregnant women to uphold equality (Art.14) and maternity rights, as disqualification is arbitrary; multiple courts mandated common PET post-delivery despite one contrary view. No blanket prohibition exists. ["Raju Devi D/O Kistur Ram VS State of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary - Rajasthan"] ["PRIYANKA KUNWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"] ["Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna VS Ishika Raj, Daughter of Rajendra Mandal - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 76"]
In the competitive world of government job recruitments, physical efficiency tests (PET) are a crucial hurdle. But what if a female candidate is in an advanced stage of pregnancy on the test date? Can authorities hold a separate test for women in advanced stage of pregnancy or defer it? This question often arises, sparking debates on equality, maternity rights, and fairness. Unfortunately, for aspiring candidates, the answer leans heavily against special accommodations.
Drawing from Supreme Court precedents and High Court observations, this post breaks down the legal stance. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for personalized guidance.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a separate physical efficiency test (PET) or deferred test exclusively for women in an advanced stage of pregnancy cannot be mandated or held as a matter of right during recruitment processes. Pregnancy is viewed as a voluntary act that does not confer a fundamental right to postpone tests or receive special concessions in competitive examinations. Such accommodations would violate equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution by creating unequal classes among candidates.
Authorities are not obligated to delay tests or provide re-tests post-delivery solely due to pregnancy. While High Courts have occasionally directed indulgence in specific cases, these are often overruled or distinguished by the Supreme Court, prioritizing uniformity in selection processes. Usha Rajkhowa VS Paramount Industries - 2009 1 Supreme 787Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna VS Ishika Raj, Daughter of Rajendra Mandal - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 76
Key quote from the Supreme Court: the act of acquisition of pregnancy is a voluntary act and the right to beget a child is not being infringed by the State in any manner... There is no law that may compel the State to postpone an examination or Physical Endurance Test... Usha Rajkhowa VS Paramount Industries - 2009 1 Supreme 787
Pregnancy does not entitle candidates to defer mandatory physical tests or claim rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, or 21. It is not imposed by the State but is a personal choice. Requiring all candidates, including pregnant women, to adhere to fixed PET schedules ensures a level playing field. Granting extensions would create sub-classifications among female candidates, violating equality. Usha Rajkhowa VS Paramount Industries - 2009 1 Supreme 787Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna VS Ishika Raj, Daughter of Rajendra Mandal - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 76
The Court has emphasized: a female candidate who enters into a marriage and conceives of her own choice cannot be a matter of prediction by the appellant Board... This right of convenience to appear in the examinations as per the choice of the candidate... cannot form the basis of a fundamental right of a woman to seek employment. This promotes expeditious completion of selections without favoritism. Usha Rajkhowa VS Paramount Industries - 2009 1 Supreme 787Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna VS Ishika Raj, Daughter of Rajendra Mandal - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 76
The apex court rejects separate or postponed PETs, distinguishing pre-employment tests from post-employment benefits. High Court extensions are impermissible here, as they undermine uniformity. Usha Rajkhowa VS Paramount Industries - 2009 1 Supreme 787Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna VS Ishika Raj, Daughter of Rajendra Mandal - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 76
Some High Courts, like Rajasthan HC, have advocated accommodations. For instance, one ruling held that pregnancy is not a disability but one of the natural consequence of marriage and directed re-tests after a reasonable time post-delivery, referencing the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961: the woman candidate deserves indulgence of qualifying the physical standards after affording a reasonable time in attaining fitness... R. Devika VS Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Recruitment Board, Chennai - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 203
Another directed: The respondents are directed to extend the time for PST/PET by sixty days from the date of their delivery. Sushila Khichar VS State of Rajasthan - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 913
Similar views appear in other Rajasthan HC cases, deeming denial of PET due to advanced pregnancy as illegal and arbitrary and... prejudicial. MANISHA GURJAR D/O PRAHLAD W/O RAJESH KUMAR GURJAR vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHANRAJU DEVI vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
However, the Supreme Court critiques these as creating unequal classes: this sub-classification... would run counter to Articles 14 and 16 within the category of females themselves. High Courts distinguish long gaps between written exams and PET, but SC prioritizes notified timelines. Usha Rajkhowa VS Paramount Industries - 2009 1 Supreme 787Laxmi Devi D/o Shri Jagan Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 428Delhi Subordinate Services vs Surender Pal - Delhi (2020)
Rulings balance Articles 14 (equality), 16 (employment opportunities), and 21 (life and dignity), but conclude no special pre-employment test is warranted. Pregnancy ≠ state-imposed disability; maternity benefits kick in post-employment. This contrasts with scenarios like hazardous duties post-appointment, where pregnancy beyond 12 weeks may lead to temporary unfitness with reserved vacancies. Usha Rajkhowa VS Paramount Industries - 2009 1 Supreme 787Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna VS Ishika Raj, Daughter of Rajendra Mandal - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 76R. Devika VS Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Recruitment Board, Chennai - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 203
While the rule is strict for recruitments, nuances exist:
Other contexts highlight evolving views on pregnancy:- In education, like a B.Ed. case, courts allowed exemptions for pregnancy-related attendance shortages, deeming denial illegal, arbitrary, and unjust, upholding constitutional mandates and CEDAW. Gayatri, D/o. Bhani Ram VS Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Through Its Registrar - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 1106- Medical negligence cases underscore risks in advanced pregnancy but don't alter recruitment law. AMARJIT KAUR VS STATE OF PUNJABB. S. Yaday VS Sai Mahima Hospital, Ramnagar- A cheating case noted advanced pregnancy limits termination options, irrelevant to employment but showing real-life pregnancy challenges. M. Selvakumar VS Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Thirumangalam, Madurai District - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4711
These illustrate that while pregnancy deserves protection in employment or education post-qualification, competitive recruitments demand uniformity.
This framework ensures fair, timely recruitments. Stay informed on notifications and plan accordingly. For tailored advice, reach out to legal experts.
(ii) Whether termination of the pregnancy can be carried out at this stage without any threat to the life of the Petitioner? ... These two standards are the "best interests" test and the "substituted judgment" test. 37. As evident from its literal description, the "best interests" test requires the Court to ascertain the course of action which would serve the best interests of the person in question. ... The Medical Board has also expressed an advice that the patient should not contin....
stage of pregnancy is illegal and arbitrary and the impugned provisions of the Standing Orders to the extent they lay down that pregnancy would render a candidate unfit is legally not sustainable. ... Efficiency Test depriving or eliminating her from the selection process for the reason that she is at the advanced stage of pregnancy on the date notified by the respondents to appear in the Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test#HL_E....
pregnant with advanced stage and the pregnancy stage of pregnancy is illegal and arbitrary and the certainly prejudicial & advertisement, as noticed herein-before, it was indicated that no separate
At the time of medical examination of a victim of sexual assault, it will be mandatory to conduct a Urine Pregnancy Test, as in many cases, this Court has noticed that such test is not conducted. ii. ... Women eligible for termination of pregnancy up to twenty-four weeks. ... A judge cannot separate herself from the social contexts in which a crime is committed and a victim suffers. ... and (g) women with pregnancy in humanitarian s....
On the previous date i.e. on 27.9.2023 considering the advance stage of pregnancy of the survivor which was 21 weeks and 5 days and the fact that the Court was to remain closed for the next five days i.e. from 28.9.2023 to 2.10.2023, the Court after considering the Medical Report ... women/survivor. ... These are decisions taken by responsible women who have few other options. They are women who would ideally have preferred to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, but were ....
Based on the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that there can be no conclusion other than to hold that action of the respondents in not granting indulgence to the petitioners in failing to qualify Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test because of their advanced stage of pregnancy is illegal ... Once it is observed & held that maternity is a human right of a woman and so longer the married woman is not disqualified from participating in the selection pr....
Based on the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that there can be no conclusion other than to hold that action of the respondents in not granting indulgence to the petitioners in failing to qualify Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test because of their advanced stage of pregnancy is illegal ... Once it is observed & held that maternity is a human right of a woman and so longer the married woman is not disqualified from participating in the selection pr....
pregnant with advanced stage and the pregnancy being of their advanced stage of pregnancy is illegal and arbitrary and ... an impediment and after having qualified the written test, at the stage when she has to undergo the pregnancy on the date notified by the respondents to appear in the Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency/span
The medical report received is against the termination of pregnancy and the Medical Board has opined that it is not in the welfare of the foetus, which may nonetheless be born alive on account of its advance stage. ... Women eligible for termination of pregnancy up to twenty-four weeks. ... This Court had also declined permission for medical termination of pregnancy due to advanced stage of pregnancy and possibility of the child bei....
University of Delhi reported in MANU/DE/1614/2010, the student whose shortage of attendance on account of advance stage of pregnancy was not condoned by the University, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court and after referring to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of ... University of Delhi reported in MANU/DE/1614/2010, the student whose shortage of attendance on account of advance stage of pregnancy was not condone....
Based on the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that there can be no conclusion other than to hold that action of the respondents in not granting indulgence to the petitioners in failing to qualify Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test because of their advanced stage of pregnancy is illegal and arbitrary and the impugned provisions of the Standing Orders to the extent they lay down that pregnancy would render a candidate unfit is legally not sustainable. Consequently, the instant batch of writ petitions succeed & is hereby allowed.
As stated above, when this test was conducted the pregnancy was more than 7 months and at that stage the termination of pregnancy was not possible and the birth of the child was imminent. The grievance of the complainant is that in case it would have been reported on 28.10.2009 that the child was suffering from Hydrocephalus then the pregnancy can be terminated. In case the child was suffering from any disease, its treatment could have been done after the birth, therefore, no case of medical negligence is made out against OP Nos.
Then he insisted that he would marry only after pregnancy was dissolved. He asked her to dissolve the pregnancy and then he would marry her. The lady doctor said that the pregnancy could not be dissolved because of the advance stage of pregnancy.
She again visited the clinic of respondent No. 1 on 07.04.2002 with the same complaint. Pregnancy test was conducted and she was found to be carrying no pregnancy. That day another test was conducted and it was found that she was carrying pregnancy. Pregnancy test was conducted and she was found to be carrying no pregnancy. Pregnancy test was conducted and she was found to be carrying no pregnancy. She again visited the clinic of respondent No. 1 on 07.04.2002 with the same complaint. She again visited the clinic of respondent No. 1 on 07....
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
