Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, held that motherhood or pregnancy can never be and should not be the basis for denying public employment opportunities to women. The court made such observations in the case of a pregnant woman who wished to join as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force/Railway Protection Special Force. 

“Discrimination based on pregnancy should never hinder a woman’s right to pursue her career aspirations as maternity should not be seen as a barrier but as a fundamental human right of every woman. It is crucial that every effort is made by all employers to create an inclusive environment where women can fulfill their professional aspirations without facing unjust obstacles, especially those related to pregnancy”, the bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur held. 

The aspirant appeared for the test and scored 72.67 marks, which were significantly higher than the cutoff marks of 64.16. Consequently, she was required to appear for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Measurement Test (PMT), and Document Verification. Due to her advanced pregnancy, the aspirant requested the Union to postpone her PET, as it included an 800-meter run, a long jump, and a high jump.

Advocate Anil Singhal, representing the aspirant, argued that once the Union was informed that the aspirant could not appear for the PET due to her advanced pregnancy, they should have postponed the PET to a suitable date, especially since the test involved activities such as the 800-meter run, high jump, and long jump, which a pregnant woman could not perform. 

Senior Public Counsel Uma Prasuna Bachu, representing the Union, argued that the Union acted fairly as they were bound by the recruitment process timelines and could not postpone the PET under any circumstances. She further contended that, after five years, the aspirant could not be appointed as all the Constable vacancies advertised in 2016 and 2018 had been filled.

The court expressed anguish “​​In which the respondents have treated the petitioner, a young meritorious lady, only because she happened to be pregnant at the time when the respondents were conducting the PET. There was no reason as to why the respondents could not have postponed the PET for a few months”. 

Furthermore, the court noted that the aspirant was denied an appointment for the past five years, even though her marks were significantly higher than the cutoff. This conduct by the Union violated the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court further highlighted that in a time when the nation was actively promoting gender equality and striving to increase women's representation in all services, including the Armed Forces, disqualifying a woman from appointment solely due to her pregnancy was unacceptable. “Pregnancy, in our view, cannot be treated as a disability but is one of the natural consequences of marriage and therefore every employer, more so the State, is expected to realize the difficulties which a woman would face during her pregnancy”, the court emphasized. 

The court further observed that the Parliament enacted the Maternity Benefit Act to ensure pregnant women could embrace motherhood honorably without fear of victimization. However, the authorities' refusal to accommodate pregnant women's genuine requests for deferment of tests involving strenuous activities undermined the goal of gender equality.

The court believed that the Union should not have ignored and displayed insensitivity towards the challenges faced by women candidates, particularly in the Forces. Adequate representation of women was crucial not only in civil employment but also in the Armed Forces and Police. 

“It appears that the respondents have treated pregnancy as though it were a sickness or a disability on account of which women could be ousted from the selection process. In our view, motherhood should never and can never be the basis for denying public employment opportunities to women”, the court opined. 

All authorities, especially those involved in public employment, must support women eager to contribute to the nation and ensure their rights are not denied due to pregnancy or other non-disabling conditions. Discrimination based on pregnancy should not hinder a woman’s career aspirations, as maternity should be seen as a fundamental human right. Employers must strive to create an inclusive environment where women can pursue their professional goals without facing unjust obstacles, particularly related to pregnancy, the bench emphasized. 

The Court, therefore, held that pregnancy could not be treated as a disability or disqualification. The Court emphasized that women could not be penalized for choosing motherhood by treating pregnancy as a disability. However, the present case showed that the Union remained oblivious to the rights and aspirations of young women, continuing to deny employment opportunities on the grounds of pregnancy. Therefore, the court found the Union's decision to reject the aspirant’s candidature unsustainable and quashed it.

Regarding the Union's plea that the vacancies for Constable in 2016 and 2018 had been filled, the court held that, given their illegal and arbitrary rejection of the aspirant’s deferment request, they could not now argue against her appointment. Additionally, the aspirant sought an appointment as a Constable, with vacancies regularly advertised. The union itself acknowledged fresh vacancies advertised in April 2024. Thus, there was no reason why the aspirant could not be appointed to these vacancies.

In light of the above, the court allowed the writ petition directing the Union to permit the aspirant to appear in the PET, PMT, and document verification within six weeks.

While allowing the writ petition with these directions, the court expressed hope that all employers, especially the State, would ensure no woman was deprived of employment opportunities due to pregnancy in the future. 

Case Title: Isha v Union Of India And Ors (2024:DHC:5500-DB)