High Court Rules Pregnancy Cannot Disqualify Women from Government Jobs

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has declared that pregnancy cannot be a basis for denying women government employment. The court emphasized that compelling women to choose between motherhood and their careers violates their reproductive and livelihood rights. This decision arose from a case involving Komal Jaiswal, who sought to postpone her physical efficiency test due to her pregnancy. The court's ruling mandates that if she passes the necessary tests, she should be appointed alongside other candidates, reinforcing the principle of equality in employment opportunities for women. This landmark decision highlights the need for sensitivity and fairness in recruitment processes.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jul 31, 2026, 10:28 IST

Court's Stance on Employment Rights for Pregnant Women

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that pregnancy should not be a reason to deny women access to government employment. The court emphasized that forcing a woman to choose between motherhood and her career infringes upon both her reproductive rights and her right to livelihood. This ruling was issued by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on July 22 and was made public on Thursday.

This decision came in response to a special appeal filed by Komal Jaiswal against the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC), which had rejected her request to postpone the physical efficiency test (PET) for the recruitment of forest guards and wildlife protectors. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, annulled both the UPSSSC's decision and a previous order that dismissed Jaiswal's petition. The court instructed the commission to conduct her PET within four weeks.

The bench stated, 'The refusal by the state and the commission to postpone the PET based on pregnancy effectively forces the applicant to choose between childbirth and employment. This cannot be permitted as it interferes with both her reproductive rights and her right to work.' Komal Jaiswal had applied for the 2023 recruitment of forest guards and wildlife protectors and was scheduled to take the PET in February 2026 after passing the written exam.

At that time, she was nine months pregnant and requested permission to take the test on foot after childbirth, but her application was denied by the commission, which claimed there was no provision in the recruitment rules for postponing the PET. The court remarked that 'a woman's marital status or pregnancy cannot be considered a disqualification for government employment.' The bench noted that since there is no explicit prohibition against postponing the PET in the rules, the commission should have adopted a humane and sensitive approach in such exceptional circumstances.

The court also pointed out that more than two years had passed between the advertisement for recruitment and the written exam, during which time natural life events such as marriage and pregnancy can occur. Punishing a woman for such circumstances would contradict the principles of equality and fairness. The High Court directed that if Komal Jaiswal succeeds in the PET, medical examination, and merit list, she should be appointed on the same date as the candidate from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category who has a lower merit score than her.

Furthermore, the bench ordered that a position in the relevant category be kept vacant until the completion of this entire process.