The Allahabad High Court has ruled that pregnancy cannot be used as a ground to deny a woman public employment, holding that forcing an aspiring candidate to choose between motherhood and a government job violates her fundamental rights. In a significant judgment reinforcing women's reproductive and employment rights, the court observed that the state cannot compel a woman to sacrifice either motherhood or her career because of rigid recruitment procedures.
The ruling was delivered by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on a special appeal filed by Komal Jaiswal, who challenged the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission's (UPSSSC) refusal to postpone her Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for the 2023 Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard recruitment. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, set aside both the commission's decision and an earlier order of a single judge that had dismissed Jaiswal's writ petition. The order, passed on July 22, was uploaded on Thursday.
Allowing the appeal, the bench directed the UPSSSC to conduct Jaiswal's Physical Efficiency Test within four weeks. In its observations, the court said denying a postponement solely because of pregnancy effectively forces a woman to choose between bearing a child and securing public employment, a position that is incompatible with constitutional guarantees. The judges emphasised that such a choice interferes with two fundamental rights—the right to reproduction and the right to employment—and therefore cannot be sustained in law.
Also Read: Allahabad HC Says Spouse Cannot Escape Maintenance Liability By Citing Own Misconduct
Jaiswal had applied for the Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard recruitment process in 2023 and successfully cleared the written examination. She was scheduled to appear for the Physical Efficiency Test in February 2026, which included a mandatory 14-kilometre walking test. At the time, however, she was nine months pregnant and sought a postponement until after childbirth, citing her medical condition. The UPSSSC rejected her request, arguing that the applicable recruitment rules contained no provision allowing the PET to be deferred on account of pregnancy.
The High Court disagreed with the commission's interpretation of the rules, indicating that administrative regulations cannot be applied in a manner that undermines constitutional rights. The judgment reflects a broader judicial approach that recognises the need for reasonable accommodation of pregnancy in recruitment and employment processes. The bench underscored that equal opportunity in public employment requires authorities to ensure that women are not placed at a disadvantage because of pregnancy or maternity.
The ruling is expected to have wider implications for recruitment practices across government departments and public service commissions. Legal experts say the judgment reinforces constitutional protections relating to equality, dignity and reproductive autonomy while highlighting the obligation of public authorities to adopt a rights-based approach in employment matters. By directing the UPSSSC to hold Jaiswal's PET within a specified timeframe, the court has affirmed that pregnancy should not become a barrier to accessing public employment, setting an important precedent for future recruitment cases involving expectant mothers.
Also Read: Allahabad HC: Woman Can't Claim Maintenance From Step-Son After Relief From Real Son