Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a special appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition seeking postponement of the physical efficiency test (PET) for recruitment to the posts of Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard on account of her being nine months pregnant at the time, the Division Bench of Arun Bhansali, CJ and Jaspreet Singh, J, allowed the appeal, holding that pregnancy is neither a disqualification for participation in the selection process nor a bar to appointment under the U.P. Forest Department Lower Subordinate (Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard) Service Rules, 2015 (Rules). The Court held that where the Rules are silent and do not expressly prohibit postponement of the PET, the Commission possesses the power to grant such relief in extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the Court directed the Commission to conduct the appellant’s PET within 4 weeks and, if she qualified and secured merit, consider her for appointment while keeping 1 OBC (woman) post vacant till declaration of her result.
The Court observed that,
“The denial by the respondents of the postponement of PET to the appellant on account of her pregnancy, essentially forces a woman to have a choice of either bearing a child or employment, which cannot be permitted as the same interferes with both her rights, i.e., right of reproduction and right to employment.”
Background
The appellant pursuant to an advertisement dated 12 September 2023 applied for recruitment for posts of Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard. During the pendency of the recruitment process, she got married in November 2023 and conceived in May 2025. She appeared in the written examination held on 9 November 2025 and was declared successful on 8 January 2026. Thereafter, she was required to undergo the PET, scheduled between 10 February 2026 and 19 February 2026, requiring candidates to complete a 14-kilometres walk within 4 hours.
On 27 January 2026, the appellant sought postponement of the PET on account of her advanced pregnancy. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Commission rejected her request on the ground that the Rules, contained no provision for such postponement. The appellant had approached the High Court on 13 February 2026, before her scheduled PET date, and on 18 February 2026, the same day the Court granted the respondents time to file a short counter affidavit, the Commission rejected her request for postponement.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in view of the advanced stage of the recruitment process, giving rise to the present special appeal.
Also Read: Gender cannot be a ground to deny promotion where Recruitment Rules make no distinction: Tripura HC
Issue
Whether a woman candidate’s right to be considered for public employment be denied on account of her temporary inability to participate in the selection process due to pregnancy or childbirth.
Analysis and decision
The Court at the outset noted that a married woman is eligible for appointment as a Forest Guard or Wildlife Guard and that pregnancy, by itself, is neither a disqualification for participation in the selection process nor a bar to appointment under the Rules. The Court observed motherhood to be the most natural phenomenon in a woman’s life and considering there has been a gap of more than 2 years from the date of advertisement and written examination and in between the appellant got married and conceived even before the written examination was held, it was expected of the Commission to be considerate and sympathetic towards the appellant and it should have realised her physical difficulty in undergoing the PET, i.e., 14-kilometres walk in 4 hours.
The Court found no justification in the respondents’ refusal to postpone the PET, noting that the appellant had sought only a 1-month deferment after delivery and appointments had not yet been made. The Court observed that the Rules are silent on aspect of providing postponement of the PET and did not expressly prohibit it. In the extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Commission was empowered to postpone the PET instead of rejecting the appellant’s request solely on the ground of absence of an enabling provision.
“The denial by the respondents of the postponement of PET to the appellant on account of her pregnancy, essentially forces a woman to have a choice of either bearing a child or employment, which cannot be permitted as the same interferes with both her rights, i.e., right of reproduction and right to employment.”
The Court noted that the fact that 332 women candidates had already cleared the medical examination against 709 advertised posts could not, by itself, justify denying the appellant an opportunity to undergo the PET, as her entitlement would ultimately depend upon her qualifying the remaining stages of the selection process and securing merit. The Court noted that the Commission submitted that conducting a separate PET for the appellant would require hiring a stadium and making the necessary arrangements, for which 4 weeks’ time was sought.
Allowing the special appeal, the Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the respondents to permit the appellant to undergo the PET pursuant to the recruitment advertisement dated 12 September 2023 and complete the same within 4 weeks. The Court further directed that, if the appellant qualified the PET and was found meritorious after completion of the remaining stages of the selection process, she should be accorded appointment from the date a candidate lower in merit in her category was appointed. The Court also directed the respondents to keep 1 post in the OBC (woman) category vacant until the appellant’s result was declared.
[Komal Jaiswal v. State of U.P., SPLA No. 318 of 2026, decided on 22-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellant: Rishabh Raj, Radhika Singh
For the respondent: Anand Kumar Singh (SC), Saurabh Shankar Srivastava