Pregnancy is no reason to defer physical test for job: HC
Debashish.Karmakar@timesgroup.com
Patna:02.03.2019
In a significant decision, Patna high court on Friday ruled that pregnancy cannot be cited as reason to defer the physical evaluation test (PET) of a candidate for recruitment since, the bench of Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Anjana Mishra said, right to motherhood and right to public employment were two separate issues.
The bench allowed the plea by Central Selection Board of Constable (CSBC) against a single-bench judgment which had directed it to defer PET of six petitioners, who were in an advanced stage of pregnancy on the test date on January 1, 2017. The petitioners were among applicants to 2,649 posts of jail wardens advertised by CSBC on July 31, 2015. The written test was held after 13 months. The bench on August 3, 2017, had directed the selection board to draw up a fresh date for the petitioners’ physical evaluation. The single bench observed that while publishing the advertisement, CSBC had not fixed the examination dates and termed it “insensitive” to force the petitioners to choose between motherhood and career.
Debashish.Karmakar@timesgroup.com
Patna:02.03.2019
In a significant decision, Patna high court on Friday ruled that pregnancy cannot be cited as reason to defer the physical evaluation test (PET) of a candidate for recruitment since, the bench of Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Anjana Mishra said, right to motherhood and right to public employment were two separate issues.
The bench allowed the plea by Central Selection Board of Constable (CSBC) against a single-bench judgment which had directed it to defer PET of six petitioners, who were in an advanced stage of pregnancy on the test date on January 1, 2017. The petitioners were among applicants to 2,649 posts of jail wardens advertised by CSBC on July 31, 2015. The written test was held after 13 months. The bench on August 3, 2017, had directed the selection board to draw up a fresh date for the petitioners’ physical evaluation. The single bench observed that while publishing the advertisement, CSBC had not fixed the examination dates and termed it “insensitive” to force the petitioners to choose between motherhood and career.
No comments:
Post a Comment