Allahabad High Court
PRITI DUBEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
A pregnant applicant must be permitted to appear for the Physical Efficiency Test after delivery, and the authority must fix a later date accordingly.
Summary
The petitioner, a seven‑month‑pregnant applicant for the post of Home Guard (Female), had cleared the written exam but was scheduled for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on 22‑09‑2026. She applied to the recruitment authority for a deferment, citing her pregnancy and medical documents, but the authority fixed the PET date despite her request. Relying on earlier judgments (Preeti Malik and Shalini Pandey), the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the authority to allow her to appear for the PET after delivery. The court held that the recruitment process must accommodate the petitioner’s pregnancy and ordered the authority to fix a PET date in the last week of December 2026, after informing her, and to consider her candidature thereafter. Consequently, the petition was allowed with the specified directions.
Issues considered
- Whether a pregnant applicant can be compelled to appear for a Physical Efficiency Test scheduled before delivery.
- Whether the recruitment authority is obligated to defer the test and grant relief by mandamus.
- Whether the recruitment timeline can be altered to accommodate the applicant’s pregnancy.
Subjects
- pregnancy
- recruitment
- physical efficiency test
- home guard
- mandamus
- equal opportunity
- women employment
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15277 of 2026
Priti Dubey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Yadav, Narendra Kumar
Chaturvedi, Shubhendu Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. This petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in Physical Examination Test
(PET) for the post of Home Guards (Female) pursuant to the Advertisement
dated 18.11.2025, fixing any date in January 2027 and also keep one post
vacant in the petitioner's category i.e. E.W.S. Women till her result is
declared."
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3- Additional Secretary
(Recruitment)/ Examination Controller, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment
and Promotion Board, Lucknow, issued an advertisement, being
Advertisement No. PRPB-B (Home Guard Cadre)-02/2025, dated
18.11.2025, for the appointment of U.P. Home Guards by direct recruitment.
The petitioner applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and
appeared in the written examination held on 26.04.2026. Petitioner was
declared successful in written examination. After the written examination,
the petitioner has to appear for document verification and physical standard
test on 16.07.2026. During this period, petitioner got pregnant and at present,
she is seven months pregnant and the due date is 8th November, 2026. The
petitioner sent application to respondent through e-mail and by hand on
06.07.2026 and 09.07.2026, respectively, mentioning therein about her
pregnancy along with medical documents, however, respondent No. 3 fixed
the date for Physical Efficiency Test on 22.09.2026. Learned counsel for the
WRIA No. 15277 of 2026
2
petitioner states that it is not possible for the petitioner to undergo Physical
Efficiency Test. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to allow
the petitioner to appear in Physical Efficiency Test after her delivery.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that owing to petitioner's
pregnancy, it is not possible for the petitioner to undergo Physical Efficiency
Test and respondent No. 3 ought to have deferred the Physical Efficiency
Test of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
judgment of this Court in case of Preeti Malik Vs. State of U.P. and 4
others, passed in Writ A No. 16580 of 2021, decided on 06.05.2022,
wherein the Court has issued direction in similar circumstances to re-conduct
Physical Efficiency Test of the petitioner i.e. Preeti Malik, after providing
prior information to her. Petitioner also relied upon judgment of Division
Bench of this Court passed in Shalini Pandey Vs. U.P. Subordinate
Service Selection; 2024:AHC-LKO:33331 in Special Appeal No. 70 of
2024, decided on 29.04.2024.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the recruitment
has to be completed within the time schedule and such a relief cannot be
granted.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down
by this court in case of Preeti Malik (supra) and Shalini Pandey (supra), I am
of the view that petitioner must be provided an opportunity to appear in the
Physical Efficiency Test after her delivery, which is scheduled in November,
2026. Since the process of selection is going on and has yet not been
completed, it would be appropriate that respondent No. 3 shall fix the date in
last week of December, 2026 for Physical Efficiency Test of the petitioner
after intimating her about the date and permit her to participate in the said
test and shall also consider the candidature of the petitioner after completion
of Physical Efficiency Test as directed above.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with the direction as mentioned
above.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 22, 2026
Nitika Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…