Landmark judgment ensures women are not forced to choose between motherhood and employment; calls for sensitivity in recruitment processes.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has set aside a previous order denying a pregnant candidate the postponement of a Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for recruitment to the posts of Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard. The court, led by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, emphasized that denying postponement of the PET due to pregnancy interferes with a woman's fundamental rights to reproduction and employment, urging public authorities to exhibit sensitivity and accommodate extraordinary circumstances.
The case involved Komal Jaiswal, who was unable to participate in the PET due to her advanced stage of pregnancy. Despite her request for postponement, citing health reasons, the request was initially rejected by the authorities, citing the absence of specific provisions in the U.P. Forest Department Lower Subordinate (Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard) Service Rules, 2015.
Upon appeal, the High Court criticized this rigid interpretation of the rules, highlighting that pregnancy should not be treated as a bar for participating in the selection process. The court noted that the gap between the advertisement for the posts and the written examination was over two years, during which natural life events like marriage and pregnancy could occur. The court asserted that the Commission should have been considerate and allowed for a reasonable accommodation in light of the extraordinary circumstances.
The judgment directs the respondents to conduct the PET for Jaiswal within four weeks and mandates that a post in her category remains vacant until her results are declared. This ensures that Jaiswal's rights are protected, and she is not unfairly excluded from the employment opportunity due to her pregnancy.
The ruling is a pivotal affirmation of the need for empathy and flexibility in recruitment processes, reinforcing the notion that women should not be compelled to choose between motherhood and career prospects. The judgment sets a precedent for similar cases, advocating for more inclusive and sensitive employment practices.
Bottom Line:
Denial of postponement of Physical Efficiency Test (PET) due to pregnancy interferes with a woman's fundamental rights of reproduction and employment. Public authorities must show sensitivity and accommodate extraordinary circumstances.
Statutory provision(s): U.P. Forest Department Lower Subordinate (Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard) Service Rules, 2015
Komal Jaiswal v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2949957
