Allahabad High Court
SONEYA UPADHYAYA @ SONEYA SHARMAversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
The petition is disposed, with the petitioner permitted to apply afresh for a compassionate appointment in accordance with the earlier judgment.
Summary
The petitioner, Soneya Upadhyaya, requested a postponement of the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for a Sub‑Inspector post because she was experiencing severe menstrual cramps, but the nodal officer refused. Consequently, she failed the PET and sought a compassionate re‑appointment under the Dying‑in‑Harness Rules. The Court examined the earlier judgment in State of U.P. & Others v. Geeta Rani (2024), which allowed a failed candidate to apply afresh for a compassionate appointment within four weeks, with the department required to decide within thirty days. Relying on that precedent, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing that the petitioner may seek a compassionate appointment as per the earlier order. No new directions were issued beyond the reference to the prior judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether a candidate who failed the Physical Efficiency Test due to menstrual health issues is entitled to a compassionate appointment under the Dying‑in‑Harness Rules.
- Whether the authorities are bound to consider such an application within the time‑frames prescribed in the earlier judgment.
Subjects
- Physical Efficiency Test
- Compassionate appointment
- Dying-in-Harness Rules
- Menstrual health
- Recruitment
- Sub‑Inspector
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6858 of 2026
Soneya Upadhyaya @ Soneya Sharma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arya Gautam, Atipriya Gautam, Sr.
Advocate, Vaishnavi Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. After some arguments, it is argued that in view of the facts as narrated
in paragraph nos.15 & 16, the petitioner is not completed the physical
efficiency test (PET) and i.e. why he was declared not qualified in the
aforesaid test. Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the writ petition reads as
follows:-
"15. That, the Petitioner had requested before the Nodal Officer, at 35th
Bn PAC, Lucknow, to take the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) of the
petitioner, after two weeks, because, she was having Monthly Menstrual
Cycle (Periods) but the Nodal Officer Refused the Request of the
petitioner.
16. That, it is important to mention here, that due to the Second Day of
the Monthly Menstrual Cycle (Periods) of the Petitioner on dated
17/03/2026, Cramps in the Stomach were very acute."
2. In this view of the matter, it is argued that respondents be directed to
decide the claim of the petitioner for re-Race on compassionate
appointment under Dying-in-Harness-Rules.
3. Learned Standing Counsel placed before this Court instructions dated
06.05.2026, the same is taken on record.
4. In paragraph-5 of the aforesaid instructions a reference has been made
in respect of the Judgment and order dated 15.05.2024 passed in Special
WRIA No. 6858 of 2026
2
Appeal (Defective) No.380 of 2024 (State of U.P. and others vs. Geeta
Rani) decided on 15.05.2024. Paragraph-29 of the aforesaid judgment
reads as follows:-
"29. In view of the above, it is provided that as the respondent-petitioner
has failed to qualify in the physical examination for the post of Sub-
Inspector, it will remain open for her to apply afresh seeking
compassionate appointment on any other suitable post in the Department,
which may be offered to her as per her eligibility and suitability. It is also
provided that in the event the respondent-petitioner makes any such
application within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered
and disposed of in view of the observations made hereinabove as well as
taking into account the Government Order dated 18.09.2015 within next
three weeks. If the petitioner is considered entitled for any other post by
the department, the same shall be offered to her within a period of 30
days' from the date of decision to be taken by the authority. "
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the paragraph-
29 of the aforesaid judgment as quoted above.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
May 7, 2026
Swati
Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…