In a landmark judgment reinforcing women’s constitutional rights, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that pregnancy cannot be used to deny a woman public employment, observing that forcing an expectant mother to choose between childbirth and a government job violates both her reproductive rights and her right to livelihood.
The Lucknow Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh delivered the verdict on July 22 while allowing a special appeal filed by Komal Jaiswal, a candidate for the Uttar Pradesh Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard recruitment.
Jaiswal had cleared the written examination but was unable to appear for the mandatory 14-kilometre Physical Efficiency Test (PET) in February 2026 because she was nine months pregnant. The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC) rejected her request to defer the test, arguing that the recruitment rules contained no provision permitting postponement.
Overturning both the Commission’s decision and an earlier single-judge order, the Division Bench directed the UPSSSC to conduct her PET within four weeks and, if she qualifies, appoint her with all consequential benefits from the same date as a lower-ranked candidate in the OBC women category. The Bench also ordered that one vacancy be kept reserved until the recruitment process is completed.
In its observations, the court stated that “the denial by the State and the Commission of the postponement of PET… essentially forces a woman to have a choice of either bearing a child or employment”, adding that such a choice is unconstitutional.
The judges further held that a woman’s marital status or pregnancy cannot be treated as a disqualification for public employment, emphasising that recruitment authorities must adopt a humane and sensitive approach when rules are silent on exceptional circumstances.
Balancing Recruitment Rules With Constitutional Rights
The judgment arose from a recruitment process that began in 2023 and stretched over more than two years before candidates reached the physical test stage. The High Court noted that during such prolonged recruitment cycles, life events such as marriage and pregnancy are entirely natural and foreseeable.
Penalising a woman because she became pregnant during this period, the Bench observed, would be contrary to the principles of equality and fairness guaranteed by the Constitution. Rejecting the Commission’s argument that the rules did not expressly permit postponement, the judges pointed out that the rules also did not prohibit it.
In such situations, public authorities are expected to exercise fairness rather than adopt a rigid interpretation of administrative procedures. Stressing the constitutional significance of the matter, the Bench observed that compelling women to choose between motherhood and employment interferes with their right to reproduction as well as their right to livelihood.
It also held that pregnancy cannot become an invisible barrier to public service merely because recruitment regulations fail to anticipate such situations. Legal experts have described the ruling as one of the most significant recent decisions on gender equality in public employment because it shifts the focus from procedural technicalities to substantive constitutional rights.
The judgment draws strength from Articles 14, 15 and 16, which guarantee equality and equal opportunity in public employment, along with Article 21, which protects life, dignity and personal liberty, including reproductive autonomy.
A Wider Message Beyond One Candidate
Although the case concerns Komal Jaiswal’s recruitment, the implications extend well beyond a single individual or department. Across India, thousands of women apply each year for government posts that require physical endurance tests, including police, forest, fire, excise and other uniformed services.
Recruitment exercises for these posts often span several years, yet many service rules remain silent on pregnancy-related deferments. The Allahabad High Court’s ruling establishes an important precedent by clarifying that administrative convenience cannot override constitutional guarantees.
The Bench observed that authorities should adopt a humane and sensitive approach in exceptional cases instead of relying solely on the absence of an explicit provision. The judgment also reflects a broader judicial trend recognising reproductive autonomy and maternity protections as integral to women’s equality.
In recent months, the Allahabad High Court has delivered several rulings reinforcing women’s rights, including decisions recognising reproductive autonomy as a fundamental right and protecting maternity-related entitlements.
Taken together, these decisions underscore an evolving constitutional approach that acknowledges the realities of women’s lives rather than expecting them to fit within outdated administrative frameworks.
By directing the Commission to provide Jaiswal with a fresh opportunity and preserve her place in the recruitment process, the court reaffirmed that motherhood should not diminish a woman’s eligibility to serve in public institutions.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling is an important reminder that equality is meaningful only when institutions recognise the realities of people’s lives. Pregnancy is neither an exception nor an obstacle; it is a natural part of life that should never become the price a woman pays for pursuing education, employment or public service.
Recruitment processes are designed to identify capable candidates, not to exclude individuals because they experience milestones such as marriage or motherhood during lengthy administrative delays. This judgment reinforces the principle that governance must be rooted not only in rules but also in empathy, fairness and constitutional values. It sends a powerful message that public institutions must evolve alongside society by creating systems that are inclusive rather than inflexible.
Also read: Army, Rajasthan Police Bust Fake Uniform Racket; 1,000 Metres of Counterfeit Combat Cloth Seized
