No Woman Should Be Deprived Of Opportunity To Seek Employment On Account Of Her Pregnancy: Delhi HC

A Division Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Shalinder Kaur expressed their frustration with the treatment the woman received from the RPF and the Central government. The Court said, “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.”

Advocate Anil Singhal appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Panel Counsel Uma Prasuna Bachu appeared for the Respondent.

The Court noted that pregnancy was incorrectly treated as a condition warranting exclusion from the selection process. The Bench firmly stated, “In our considered view, 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 Court emphasized that the RPF should have granted the woman a deferment for the PET, given her pregnancy and the physical demands of the test, which included high jumps, long jumps, and running. The Court directed the RPF to conduct the woman’s tests and documentation within six weeks. If she meets the eligibility criteria, the RPF was instructed to appoint her as a constable with retrospective seniority and other benefits.

The Court asserted that authorities, particularly those responsible for public employment, must recognize the importance of supporting women who wish to contribute to the workforce and must not deny them opportunities due to pregnancy or similar conditions, which should not be classified as disabilities.

The Court criticized the authorities for their lack of awareness regarding the rights and aspirations of young women, stating that their actions in rejecting the petitioner’s candidacy were unjustifiable and required rectification. Consequently, the Court annulled the decision to reject her application and imposed a ₹1 lakh fine on the government. This amount was to be paid to another woman who had been injured in the High Court premises due to a ceiling collapse.

The Court concluded by urging all employers, particularly the State, to ensure that women are not deprived of employment opportunities due to pregnancy. The Court added, “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”

Cause Title: Isha v. Union of India & Ors., [2024:DHC:5500-DB]