In a significant ruling reinforcing women's rights in employment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed respondents to permit a pregnant candidate to undertake a physical efficiency test (PET), holding that pregnancy cannot be grounds for denying employment opportunities. The judgment aligns with precedents from Delhi and Allahabad High Courts, emphasizing that genuine requests for deferment of physically strenuous activities during pregnancy must be considered favorably.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Priyal Mishra, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondent-authority to allow her to undertake the physical efficiency test. The petitioner alleged that she was unable to appear for the PET due to pregnancy, as her doctor advised against it. She contended that denying her the opportunity to take the test solely on account of pregnancy violated her right to employment.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was a candidate for a recruitment process requiring a physical efficiency test
- She was pregnant at the time of the scheduled PET and was medically advised not to undertake it
- The petitioner relied on judgments from Delhi and Allahabad High Courts, which held that pregnancy should not deprive women of employment opportunities
- A representation filed by the petitioner was pending consideration before the respondents
Procedural History
- 2026: Writ Petition No. 22002 of 2026 filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur
- 29.06.2026: The High Court heard the matter and passed the present order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Permission to undertake the physical efficiency test despite her pregnancy
- Inclusion in the recruitment process if she qualifies the PET
- Disposal of her pending representation in accordance with law
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether denying a pregnant woman the opportunity to undertake a physical efficiency test, and consequently depriving her of employment, violates her fundamental rights under the Constitution, particularly in light of judicial precedents emphasizing gender equality and non-discrimination.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- Cited the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Isha v. Union of India & Ors (W.P. No. 3732/2019), which held that no woman should be deprived of employment opportunities due to pregnancy
- Relied on the Allahabad High Court judgment in Preeti Malik v. State of UP & Ors (W.A. No. 16580/2021), which echoed similar sentiments
- Argued that the respondents' refusal to permit her to take the PET was arbitrary and discriminatory
- Submitted that there was no condition restricting only unmarried candidates from appearing in the examination
For the Respondent
- The Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner's representation would be considered and decided in accordance with law
- No substantive counter-arguments were presented opposing the petitioner's contentions
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the judgments cited by the petitioner, from the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts, established a clear legal principle: pregnancy cannot be a ground for depriving a woman of employment opportunities. The Court noted that these judgments emphasized the need for employers, especially the State, to consider genuine requests for deferment of physically strenuous activities during pregnancy favorably.
The Court relied on the following key passage from the Delhi High Court judgment in Isha v. Union of India & Ors:
"While allowing the writ petition with the aforesaid directions, we earnestly hope that all employers, especially the State, will in the future, ensure that no woman is deprived of an opportunity to seek employment only on account of her pregnancy. We also hope that all genuine requests for deferment of physical endurance test and other physically strenuous activities, by women candidates on account of pregnancy will be considered favorably."
The Court found no reason to deviate from this well-established principle and held that the petitioner's request for an opportunity to undertake the PET was justified and merited favorable consideration.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The respondents were directed to conduct the physical efficiency test of the petitioner within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order
- If the petitioner qualifies the test, she must be permitted to be part of the recruitment process
- The recruitment process must be concluded finally in accordance with the law
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pregnancy Is Not a Disqualification
This judgment reinforces that pregnancy cannot be used as a ground to deny women employment opportunities. Employers, particularly State authorities, must:
- Consider genuine requests for deferment of physically strenuous tests or activities during pregnancy
- Ensure that recruitment processes are inclusive and non-discriminatory
- Provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant candidates to undertake necessary tests at a later stage
Judicial Precedents Must Be Followed
- Courts are increasingly recognizing the need to protect women's rights in employment, especially in physically demanding roles
- Lower courts and tribunals must take note of this judgment and similar precedents when adjudicating cases involving pregnant candidates
- Failure to consider such requests favorably may result in judicial intervention under Article 226
Practical Implications for Recruitment Processes
- Physical Efficiency Tests: Authorities must establish clear protocols for deferring PETs for pregnant candidates without penalizing them
- Representation Disposal: Pending representations from pregnant candidates must be decided expeditiously and in accordance with judicial precedents
- Policy Review: Employers should review their recruitment policies to ensure compliance with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination
