admin 
During the government job recruitment process, if you are pregnant, then you should not be forced to either take the child or let the job go. The Allahabad High Court has pronounced a landmark judgment to the effect that pregnancy is not acceptable as a reason to disbar a woman from public employment, a ruling that has far-reaching implications for maternity rights in government jobs for every woman in India.
Quick Facts
| Detail | Info |
| Court | Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench |
| Ruling Date | July 22, 2026 |
| Bench | The two Justices were Honourable Shri Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh. |
| Case | Komal Jaiswal vs UPSSSC (Mumbai) |
| Recruitment | Recruitment for the Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard in 2023. |
| Key Ruling | The fact that a woman is pregnant should not be used as a reason to deny her a public position. |
| Relief Granted | PET will take place in the next 4 weeks. |
What Happened?
The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC) had conducted the written exam of the Forest Guard and Wildlife Guard recruitment for the year 2023, and a female candidate, Komal Jaiswal, had appeared for the same and had qualified for the same. Her Physical Efficiency Test (PET) was to be conducted in February 2026, when she was nine months pregnant.
She asked that the walking distance be postponed until after her childbirth, to 14 km. The commission said that the recruitment rules didn’t provide for such deferral. Once, she had been turned down by a single judge as well.
However, on appeal, a division bench of the High Court reversed both decisions altogether.
What the Court Said
The verdict has been one of the most clear-cut ones to date on maternity rights in public services in India.
The bench agreed that it would be infringing both rights — right to motherhood and right to livelihood — if a woman is compelled to give up her livelihood for her right to reproduce. It also strongly believed that a woman’s marital status or pregnancy should not be considered as a disqualification in the recruitment of public sector rules.
The court went on to note that the recruitment rules did not specifically state that deferral was prohibited and therefore the commission should have employed a “humane and sensitive approach. Almost two years had passed from the time of publishing the recruitment notice to the time of conducting the written test — in this period marriage and pregnancy are perfectly normal events.
What This Means for Women Applicants
| Scenario | Before This Ruling | After This Ruling |
| Patients at PET will be pregnant at the time of this examination. | Request likely rejected | Deferral needs to be taken into account. |
| There are no rules about pregnancy. | Commission could refuse | Humane interpretation required |
| Forced to miss test | No remedy available | Court can intervene |
| Women’s job protections | Unclear protections | Judicially affirmed |
The decision is a strong affirmation of a pregnant woman’s employment rights during the physical and/or medical assessment of her fitness for employment in the context of a government recruitment process.
Relief Granted
The Court ordered that:
- Jaiswal’s PET is to be done within 4 weeks.
- If she successfully passes all the stages, she is to be appointed on the same date as a lower-ranked candidate in her category.
- There should be one open position in her category until the process is complete.
Explore more inspiring stories.
Who Fought Maui’s Wildfires?
Discover the women leading emergency response.
Which Massachusetts Towns Are Richest?
Browse the wealthiest communities today.
Which Illinois Cities Need Support?
Find the state’s lowest-income communities.
Which Countries Protect Workers Best?
Check out the strongest employment laws.
Who Leads Work-Life Balance?
See the countries setting global standards.
Why It Matters Beyond One Case
This judgment is a precedent for all other government recruitment-related pregnancy and employment laws in India. It indicates that a lack of a deferral provision is not a license to discriminate and that commissions cannot simply sit on their hands.
This judgment is now a direct legal instrument for any woman who has to face pregnancy while going through the government job recruitment process. The protections described are not limited to the realm of policy; they are constitutionally endorsed rights.
FAQs
Can a government recruitment body reject my request to defer a test due to pregnancy?
Not anymore, according to this ruling. The Allahabad High Court has said that the rules must explicitly mention deferral, or if they don’t, then a humane and sensitive approach must be taken.
Does this ruling apply to all government jobs in India?
The ruling is from the Allahabad High Court and will be applicable in Uttar Pradesh directly, but it is persuasive in other courts across the country and will be effective in strengthening maternity rights in government jobs across the country.
What happens if I have been at a stage of the recruitment and missed due to pregnancy?
One may appeal to the High Court under this judgment. The rights of pregnant women in employment have been noted by Courts in India.
Do physical tests such as a PET fall under these protections?
Yes. In this case, the specific case involved a walking PET of 14 km, and the court ruled that the recruitment medical examination rules should be flexible enough to allow for pregnancy.
May a commission refuse my request because there is no provision in the rules?
The court specifically denied this argument. The absence of mention of women in the recruitment rules does not constitute an obstacle to women enjoying their constitutional rights as women employees.
