The Allahabad High Court has affirmed that pregnancy should not serve as a basis for denying a woman public employment, emphasising that compelling a woman to choose between motherhood and professional opportunities infringes on her reproductive rights as well as her right to a livelihood. This declaration was made while addressing a plea from a candidate who sought to postpone her physical efficiency test for recruitment as a Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard, due to her pregnancy.

Details of the Case

The ruling, issued on July 22, 2026, by a bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, was in response to an appeal from Komal Jaiswal. She contested the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission’s (UPSSSC) earlier decision to reject her request for deferring the physical efficiency test. Originally, her writ petition had been dismissed by a single judge.

Jaiswal had applied for the 2023 recruitment for Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard positions. After successfully passing the written examination, she was slated to take a physical efficiency test in February 2026. However, as she was nine months pregnant at the time, she requested the postponement of the 14-km walking test until after she had given birth, which the commission denied, citing a lack of provisions for deferral within the recruitment rules.

In its judgement, the court stated that denying the postponement due to her pregnancy essentially forces a woman to either pursue motherhood or seek employment, which is unacceptable as it conflicts with both her reproductive rights and her right to work. Moreover, the court highlighted that a woman’s marital status or pregnancy should not be grounds for disqualification from public employment.

Implications of the Verdict

The court also asserted that since the rules did not categorically prevent the postponement of the physical efficiency test, the commission ought to have adopted a compassionate and understanding approach in such exceptional circumstances. The bench pointed out that over two years elapsed between the initial recruitment advertisement and the written examination, making it reasonable for the court to take into account life events such as marriage and pregnancy.

Moreover, the judges raised concerns about equity and justice, suggesting that penalising a woman for natural life situations would violate principles of equality. They directed that one position in the OBC women category be reserved until the recruitment process is completed, ensuring fairness and consideration for women undergoing similar circumstances.

In conclusion, the court mandated that pregnancy should not preclude a woman from employment in the public sector, ordering the UPSSSC to provide Jaiswal with a new opportunity to undertake the physical efficiency test, along with full benefits from the date a lower-ranked candidate in the OBC women category would receive them.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share