Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Sources do not support that a separate exam cannot be conducted for pregnancy-related absence; instead, accommodations like attendance condonation or post-maternity eligibility are favored over special exams. Special exams are case-specific for other reasons (e.g., illness, errors) but not routine or mandated for pregnancy, emphasizing fairness and eligibility. ["Suchithra VS Tamilnadu Medical Council - Madras"] ["Suchithra S vs The Academic officer (FAC) / controller of Examination Advocate -MR D RAVICHANDER - Madras"] ["Shanti Gopal Halder and 168 others Vs Government of Bangladesh - Supreme Court"]
Imagine preparing rigorously for a competitive government job exam, only to miss the physical test due to pregnancy. Can you demand a separate exam? This question arises frequently in recruitments like police constables, where physical efficiency tests (PET) are crucial. A separate exam cannot be conducted as a matter of right for candidates unable to appear due to pregnancy, as it constitutes a voluntary incapacity that doesn't override selection schedules or equality principles. Supreme Court precedents firmly establish this, while some High Courts offer limited equitable relief. This post breaks down the law, key judgments, and practical insights.
The question at hand is straightforward: a separate exam can not be conducted for the candidate who can not appear in exam due to pregnancy. Pregnancy, viewed as a voluntary act, does not confer a fundamental right to postpone exams or demand separate slots, especially in time-bound recruitments involving physical tests. This stance protects equality under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 16 (equality in public employment) of the Indian Constitution. Granting such requests could create an unequal sub-class among female candidates, disadvantaging others and delaying processes. Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna VS Ishika Raj, Daughter of Rajendra Mandal - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 76
However, courts have shown nuance. While no blanket right exists, fact-specific relief like post-delivery postponements may be granted in limited scenarios.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected claims for separate or postponed PETs due to pregnancy. In a landmark ruling, it reversed High Court orders allowing extensions, emphasizing: the right to claim employment on the strength of such facts where an individual is incapacitated by virtue of health conditions cannot be said to have a fundamental right to claim employment. 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.Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna VS Ishika Raj, Daughter of Rajendra Mandal - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 76
Key reasoning includes:- Voluntary Choice: 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 by seeking extension of the dates of physical evaluation on account of a self-acquired incapacity cannot form the basis of a fundamental right of a woman to seek employment.Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna VS Ishika Raj, Daughter of Rajendra Mandal - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 76- Equality Violation: Creating a sub-class for pregnant women would run counter to Articles 14 and 16 within the category of females themselves.Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna VS Ishika Raj, Daughter of Rajendra Mandal - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 76
This binding view prioritizes expeditious recruitments and uniformity.
Rajasthan High Courts have taken a softer approach in constable recruitments. Where candidates qualify written exams but miss PST/PET due to advanced pregnancy, courts deem blanket disqualifications arbitrary under Article 14. Pregnancy is seen as a natural consequence of marriage and maternity a human right, warranting indulgence per the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Laxmi Devi D/o Shri Jagan Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 428Raju Devi D/O Kistur Ram VS State of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary - 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1046Sushila Khichar VS State of Rajasthan - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 913
Examples:- Directions for 60 days post-delivery for PST/PET or joining separate tests. Raju Devi D/O Kistur Ram VS State of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary - 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1046- One case allowed a post-delivery candidate to join 405 others in a deferred PET after final written exams—deemed a peculiar facts exception, not precedent. Palivela Nagadurga vs State of A.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(AP) 220
These are discretionary remedies, not entitlements, often where gaps exist between written exams and PET (e.g., 2 years). Laxmi Devi D/o Shri Jagan Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 428
Courts consistently uphold rigid exam rules across contexts, underscoring no general right to separate exams for personal issues. This aligns with pregnancy cases:
These reinforce that voluntary or personal incapacities (like pregnancy) don't justify disrupting processes, preserving fairness under Articles 14 and 16. Sachin Kumar VS Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) - 2021 4 Supreme 198
Supreme Court rulings bind and critique High Court indulgences for ignoring non-pregnant candidates' rights and delays. High Court relief is narrow:- Timeline Gaps: Relief possible with long delays between stages; none otherwise. Laxmi Devi D/o Shri Jagan Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 428Raju Devi D/O Kistur Ram VS State of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary - 2018 0 Supreme(Raj) 1046- Prior Qualification: Only post-written exam clearance. Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna VS Ishika Raj, Daughter of Rajendra Mandal - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 76- No Broader Extension: Limited to PET/PST; unsupported for written exams. Post-employment maternity benefits don't apply pre-appointment. Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna VS Ishika Raj, Daughter of Rajendra Mandal - 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 76
Advertisements barring pregnant participation are upheld if non-arbitrary.
This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your situation.
The contention of the Petitioner is that the fact that the Petitioner did not carry the medical registration certificate, should be ignored and though the exams have been conducted and the results have now been declared, a separate arrangement should be made to enable him to appear for the exams. ... (e) It is the lapse on the part of the examination authorities in not allowing the Petitioner to appear for the exam and, therefore, the concerned authorities should be ....
It is further the case of the Petitioner that when the Petitioner was applying online for the CA Final examination to be conducted in November 2023 an error message was shown stating that the Petitioner is not allowed to fill the exam form due to non-compliance of Articleship training requirements. ... is not eligible to appear in the November, 2023 CA Final Examination. ... The Announcement was applicable to only those class of students who were deprived to register for the practical ....
However the controller of examination has not issued the exam application. ... There is no midterm exam as the examination is conducted only course undergone by the petitioners is a course which has no separate ... entitled to appear for the examination in view of the maternity leave availed.
But they could not appear in the exam on the said date due to clerical mistake in the order. However, by correcting the order, they sat for the exam on 24.11.2017 inasmuch, the court directed the respondents to arrange the exam of 23.08.2017 for the petitioners by special arrangement. ... to lack of suitable candidates, the BPSC could not recommend any candidate in 946 posts. ... He further contends that since the petitioners could not#HL_E....
No. 25729 of 2018 has 86% of attendance and hence, they are entitled to appear for the examination schedule to be held in October 2018. However the controller of examination has not issued the exam application. The last date for submission of application was also over by 27.09.2018. ... There is no midterm exam as the examination is conducted only after the completion of two year course. ... 4. The petitioner in W.P. ... Thus, it is seen that both this Court as well as the Delhi High Court have consiste....
Under normal circumstances, if the LDCE had been conducted annually as mandated by the rules, a candidate would have had an opportunity each year. The counsel further emphasized that due to administrative inefficiency, the applicants should not face adverse consequences. ... According to settled legal principles, 27 separate LDCE exams should have been conducted by the department, one for each year, but this was not done. 20. ... Group 'B' without providing five #HL_S....
Under normal circumstances, if the LDCE had been conducted annually as mandated by the rules, a candidate would have had an opportunity each year. The counsel further emphasized that due to administrative inefficiency, the applicants should not face adverse consequences. ... According to settled legal principles, 27 separate LDCE exams should have been conducted by the department, one for each year, but this was not done. 20. ... Group 'B' without providing five #HL_S....
The Committee finds no evidence to support the claim that the candidate was disturbed repeatedly or that her examination performance was adversely affected due to actions of invigilator. The grievance raised by the candidate is therefore not substantiated and disposed of. ... Repeatedly the father of the candidate stressed upon the desirability of revisiting the requirement of taking "Handprints" for those candidates whose Adhar is not verified at the biometric registration desk before....
Kumar has also submitted that if the petitioner is not permitted to take the exam scheduled on 17.12.2023, it would not be possible for the respondents to conduct a separate examination for her in isolation. 9. ... Counsel has however urged, that if the petitioner is not permitted to apply for and appear in the exam scheduled on 17.12.2023, the protection so granted would become "...... vacuous and immaterial even if Petitioner succeeds in the present petition ..........
In the similar set of facts where candidate, namely, Arun Kumar could not appear in the examination pursuant to the same advertisement due to illness. ... (Teacher Eligibility Test) examination date clashed with the date of exam of Sub-Inspector, therefore, the exam of separate class of candidates has been rescheduled on the ground of the examination of T.E.T. as the same clashed with the date of exam of Sub-Inspector. ... He further submits that the....
However, the organizers were able to ensure the completion of the examination in other centres. (3) Kongunadu College of Engineering and Technology, Tiruchirappalli. TRB rescheduled the exam for those candidates from the above mentioned three centres, who could not complete their exam due to technical glitches. The rescheduled exam was conducted on 27.06.2019 at six centres 1. Mahalakshmi Engineering College, Trichy 2. Shivani College of Engineering and Technology, Trichy 3. Sengunthar Engineering College and Technology, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal 4. KSR Institute for Eng....
Keeping in view the above irregularities, prima-facie, the entire process for recruitment for the post of Grade-II(DASS) appears to be vitiated. This shows that impersonation in the exam cannot be ruled out. (v) The Board also allowed some candidates, not having the prescribed essential qualification, to appear in the exam.
After having participated and failed they are estopped from assailing the result on the ground that Expert Committee which recommended its opinion, and the examining body declared the result on the said basis, was wrongful. A candidate who appears for exam cannot be the examiner in his own case. It is true that the petitioners have participated in the selection for the post of College Lecturer and are well versed. However, the basis of Competitive Examination is that the candidates have to appear in an exam conducted by the examining body.
Once the candidate clears the exam, he is awarded the CoC by the 2nd respondent in the relevant grade IV Certificate of Competency: Upon completion of the post-sea training courses, the candidate is eligible to appear for CoC exam conducted by the 2nd respondent. On successful completion, the candidate is eligible to appear for Certificate of Competency (CoC) examination i.e., Stage – IV. The CoC are licenses to work on board a ship in various grades and in various ship categories –
The college/appellant argues that only when a candidate has a minimum of 40% attendance, can the discretion be exercised, permitting her to appear for the exam and she be allowed to fulfill their attendance criteria in the subsequent semester, and not otherwise. 2, 4, 5 and 7 would not qualify in terms of clause (a) of Ordinance VII(2).
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
