Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Nisha Joshi (2025:Rj-Jd:35661-Db) on 11 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:35661-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 148/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. Director General Of Police, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Addl. Director General Of Police, (Appointment And Promotion
Board), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Nisha Joshi D/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Joshi W/o Shri
Dushyant, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village And Post
A 614 Archi Galaxy Apartment Opp. Debari Power House
Debari District Udaipur (Raj.)
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
Mr. Sandeep Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Sangwa
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Order
11/08/2025
1. Mr. B.L. Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the appellants fairly submits that the proposition in
question is governed by the judgment of the Division Bench in the
case of Laxmi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other
connected petitions, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18808/2015
rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 30.05.2017.
The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows :
"Once it is observed & held that maternity is a human right
of a woman and so longer the married woman is not disqualified
from participating in the selection process and is not an
[2025:RJ-JD:35661-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-148/2024]
impediment and after having qualified the written test, at the
stage when she has to undergo the Physical Standard
Test/Physical Efficiency Test became pregnant with advanced
stage and the pregnancy being not a disability but one of the
natural consequence of marriage, the woman candidate
deserves indulgence of qualifying the physical standards after
affording a reasonable time in attaining fitness which the
authority may consider to be appropriate keeping in view the
provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
Based on the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that
there can be no conclusion other than to hold that action of the
respondents in not granting indulgence to the petitioners in
failing to qualify Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test
because of their advanced stage of pregnancy is illegal and
arbitrary and the impugned provisions of the Standing Orders to
the extent they lay down that pregnancy would render a
candidate unfit is legally not sustainable.
Consequently, the instant batch of writ petitions succeed &
is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to call upon the
petitioners for their Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency
Test after giving them due notice and if they qualify with the
standards laid down under the relevant scheme of Rules and
find place in the order of merit in their respective category, they
may be considered for appointment in terms of their
advertisements dt.20.07.2013/14.07.2013 respectively.
Necessary compliance be made within four months.
No costs."
2. However, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the appellants submits that the only parameters which need
the operation of the judgment of Laxmi Devi (supra) should be
the status of the recruitment process, the time gap which would
have elapsed between the order for physical test to the time when
the same is being undertaken, the period of adjudication and any
other fallibility due to elapse of time the controversy would have
become redundant.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
judgment of Pinki Vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.5488/2022 and other connected matters, decided
on 23.05.2022), as quoted by the learned Single Bench of this
Court has been rendered infructuous but in the interim order
[2025:RJ-JD:35661-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-148/2024]
passed in Pinki (supra), the judgment of Laxmi Devi (supra) has
been mentioned, which has already attained finality. Learned
counsel further submits that the other objections as raised by
learned Additional Advocate General, except for the merits of the
case, may not be of any purpose in the present scenario because
an interim order dated 01.02.2022 (S.B. Writ Petition
No.1791/2022) was already operating in favour of the petitioner-
respondent No.1 for a seat to be kept vacant, and thereafter, the
learned Single Judge had passed an order dated 12.09.2023 in
favour of the petitioner-respondent No.1. The interim order dated
01.02.2022 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Writ Petition
No.1791/2022 reads as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the
post of Deputy Inspector/Platoon Commander, after passing the
written examination the petitioner has been called for Physical
Efficiency Test on 14.02.2022; however, the petitioner has
pregnancy of 18 weeks and therefore, unable to participate in
the PET. The respondents may be directed to postpone said PET
of the petitioner till the petitioner is physically fit after her
delivery.
In view of the submissions, issue notice. Issue notices of
stay application also. The notices be made returnable within four
weeks.
In the meanwhile and till further orders, the respondents
are directed not to cancel the candidature of the petitioner on
account of non-appearance in the Physical Efficiency Test
scheduled to be held on 14.02.2022 and one post in petitioner's
category i.e. General Female, pursuant to the recruitment
notification dated 03.02.2021, shall be kept vacant."
4. In light of the aforesaid submissions and the fact that an
interim order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge was operational in favour of petitioner-respondent No.1 for
keeping one seat vacant and thereafter, order dated 12.09.2023
was also passed in favour of petitioner-respondent No.1, we deem
[2025:RJ-JD:35661-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-148/2024]
it appropriate to cover it with the judgment rendered in the case
of Laxmi Devi (supra).
5. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
6. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
43-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
