A nine-month pregnant woman was asked to complete a 14-kilometre walk within four hours for a Forest Guard recruitment test. The Allahabad High Court held that pregnancy cannot be used to deny her a fair chance at public employment. A division bench said forcing women to choose between motherhood and a career cannot be permitted. The court ordered a fresh Physical Efficiency Test (PET), protecting the candidate’s opportunity to compete without treating pregnancy as a disqualification.
The ruling matters beyond one recruitment process. It links employment access with equality, dignity, reproductive choice, and a woman’s right to take part in public life. The case involved Komal Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Lucknow & Ors. Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh passed the order on July 22, 2026.
The recruitment process began with an advertisement in September 2023. The written examination took place in November 2025, after a delay of more than two years. During that period, the candidate married, became pregnant, and qualified in the written test.
She was then required to take the PET for Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard posts. Since she was in the final stage of pregnancy, she asked the recruitment commission to postpone the test for about one month after delivery. The commission rejected the request, saying the service rules did not provide for postponement. A single judge also refused relief.
The division bench took a different view. It held that neither marriage nor pregnancy disqualified the candidate under the applicable recruitment rules. The court said the absence of an express postponement rule did not prevent the authorities from acting fairly in an exceptional case.
Pregnancy cannot be a ground to deny employment under constitutional principles
The Allahabad High Court pregnancy employment ruling treats the dispute as more than a problem with an examination schedule. It concerns whether a woman’s right to seek public employment can disappear because she becomes pregnant during a delayed recruitment process. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. A public authority cannot apply recruitment conditions in a way that is arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfairly targeted at a protected group.
A physical test may be a valid job requirement for a Forest Guard. The concern arises when an authority insists that a woman who is medically unable to perform the test during advanced pregnancy must lose her entire employment opportunity. The court’s order shows that the same rule may require a fair adjustment when strict application would produce an unjust result.
The candidate did not ask for exemption from the PET. She asked for a short postponement. The court treated that request as different from refusing to meet the job requirement.
Sex discrimination and gender stereotypes
Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds including sex. Pregnancy-related decisions can raise sex discrimination concerns because they affect women in a way that men cannot experience and may rest on assumptions about women’s family roles.
A woman’s pregnancy does not erase her education, merit, or success in a written examination. Nor does it prove that she lacks the ability or commitment to perform public service after a safe return to work. Employment decisions should focus on lawful eligibility and job-related ability, not on the assumption that motherhood makes a woman less suitable.
Why is the motherhood versus career choice unlawful?
A forced choice can arise in several ways. An employer may withdraw an appointment, refuse a joining date, deny maternity leave, demand resignation, or treat pregnancy as proof that a woman is not committed to work.
The Allahabad case involved a recruitment test, not a maternity leave dispute. Still, the principle is clear that pregnancy cannot automatically end a woman’s chance to compete for a job. A temporary medical limitation should not be treated as permanent professional disqualification.
The Allahabad High Court ruling strengthens women’s right to work and become mothers
The Allahabad High Court held that pregnancy cannot be a ground to deny employment when a candidate remains otherwise eligible. Its order protects a woman’s chance to complete the required selection process without forcing her to choose between childbirth and public service.
The strongest message is the court’s finding that compelling such a choice “cannot be permitted.” Public authorities and employers should judge women by lawful job standards, not by stereotypes about motherhood.
Women who face pregnancy-based exclusion should preserve evidence and seek the remedy allowed by the governing rules. Employers should review recruitment and workplace practices before a temporary medical condition becomes a permanent barrier to a woman’s career.
. . .
References: