ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to declare the action of the 2 nd Respondent in conducting a Physical Measurement Test (PMT), Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for the recently delivered woman petitioner on 03.01.2025 on par with others as part of the direct recruitment for the posts of SCT PCs (Civil) (Men & Women) Constable without considering the request of the petitioner at the 2 nd respondent board office and at the event’s venue as well to conduct the events once petitioner is fit to participate as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Art 14, 15(3), 16, 21 and 42 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2 nd Respondent to grant time to the Petitioner herein until she is fit and allow her to participate in the further selection process without insisting on Physical Efficiency Test (PET)/Physical Measurement Test to complete, by setting aside the petitioners PMT/PET Performance Report dated 03.01.2025 in the interest of justice and to pass such other orders.” 2. (a) The 2 nd respondent issued notification dated 28.11.2022 for the recruitment of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constables (Civil) (Men & Women). The selection process consists of three phases, out of which, the petitioner participated in the preliminary written test and successfully cleared the same, and further, the petitioner attempted physical efficiency test. Though notification was issued on 28.11.2022 and preliminary written test was conducted on 22.01.2023, physical measurements test and physical efficiency tests were not conducted immediately and came to be deferred twice. By press release, the same was tentatively scheduled from 13.03.2023 and was deferred later again by press release dated 10.03.2023. The same was once again scheduled but deferred later. Ultimately the respondents issued press release on 12.12.2024 scheduling the aforementioned tests to be held from 30.12.2024 to 01.02.2025. (b) In the interregnum, petitioner has delivered a baby boy on 28.08.2024, therefore, she made oral request requesting the respondents to defer her participation in the aforesaid physical measurement test and physical efficiency test to some other date since she delivered baby boy. As there was no response, the petitioner has participated in the aforesaid events which have commenced from 30.12.2024 and participated on 03.01.2025. Though the petitioner has cleared physical measurement test, she could not clear Physical Efficiency Test. As there was no response, the petitioner has participated in the aforesaid events which have commenced from 30.12.2024 and participated on 03.01.2025. Though the petitioner has cleared physical measurement test, she could not clear Physical Efficiency Test. The Physical Efficiency Test for women candidates, in terms of 20C of the notification, prescribes that the candidate has to undergo and qualify in 1600 meters run within 10 minutes 30 seconds and one out of two events of 100 meters, run to be completed in 18 seconds or long jump clearing minimum of 2.75 meters. The petitioner initially attempted 1600 meters but she could not complete it within the prescribed time of 10 minutes 30 seconds and she completed the run in 11 minutes 16 seconds, thereby she was not qualified. (c) Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation dated 15.02.2025 to the 2 nd respondent requesting to allow her to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test once again. As the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Smt.T.Rajitha, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – I for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though notification has been issued on 28.11.2022 fixing the schedule of events such as preliminary written examination followed by physical measurement test and physical efficiency test, the written examination was conducted on 22.01.2023, however, the other two qualifying tests were not conducted and came to be deferred twice, however, ultimately they were held from 30.12.2024 to 01.02.2005. Because of her pregnancy and giving birth to a child on 28.08.2024, the petitioner could not effectively participate in the physical efficiency test though she cleared the physical measurement test. Petitioner cannot be expected to compete with other women candidates who are physically fit and the pregnancy being not a disability but one of the natural consequences of marriage, she deserves to be given a reasonable time in attaining the fitness. As the petitioner has passed the written test, she cannot be denied a fair chance of participation in the physical efficiency test. She also contends that similarly situated women who had gone through pregnancy/post-delivery were accommodated for conducting special tests by giving them sufficient time, therefore, the petitioner also be extended parity with them. 5. (a) Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions issued by the 2 nd respondent. She also contends that similarly situated women who had gone through pregnancy/post-delivery were accommodated for conducting special tests by giving them sufficient time, therefore, the petitioner also be extended parity with them. 5. (a) Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions issued by the 2 nd respondent. The aforesaid instruction states that as per Para 20C of the notification, the women candidates have to clear Physical Efficiency Test by completing 1600 meters run within 10 minutes 30 seconds, whereas the petitioner completed the run in 11 minutes 16 seconds which is beyond the time specified therein and further that the petitioner has made a request or representation after participating in the event rather than beforeundergoing the aforesaid test. It also states that the 2 nd respondent had permitted 405 pregnant/post-delivered women candidates to attend the Physical Efficiency Test but however they all have approached 2 nd respondent before conducting said Physical Efficiency Test, therefore, petitioner having participated in the test cannot now claim a second chance. (b) Learned Assistant Government Pleader also contended that if the petition is allowed it would open floodgates and candidates though having participated in such tests would again come back with similar medical reasons for affording a second chance, the very purpose of conducting the test and the level playing field for all candidates would be lost. 6. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions made by both parties. 7. The present case has to be seen from the perspective of equal opportunity and level playing field on account of biological reasons when a woman at given point of time goes through pregnancy. In the present case, the petitioner has just passed the phase of pregnancy by giving birth to a child before she had to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test for the purpose of being selected as Police Constable (Civil). In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to look into certain judicial precedents which recognize the rights of such pregnant women in the context of considering for employment. 8. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it is necessary to look into certain judicial precedents which recognize the rights of such pregnant women in the context of considering for employment. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and another , [ (2000) 3 SCC 224 ] , while considering the issue as to whether the female workers working on Muster Roll should be given any maternity benefit in the context of the provisions of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and interpreting the provisions of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, held as follows: “33. A just social order can be achieved only when inequalities are obliterated and everyone is provided what is legally due. Women who constitute almost half of the segment of our society have to be honoured and treated with dignity at places where they work to earn their livelihood. Whatever be the nature of their duties, their avocation and the place where they work, they must be provided all the facilities to which they are entitled. To become a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the employer has tobe considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realise the physical difficulties which a working woman would face in performing her duties at the workplace while carrying a baby in the womb or while rearing up the child after birth. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 aims to provide all these facilities to a working woman in a dignified manner so that she may overcome the state of motherhood honourably, peaceably, undeterred by the fear of being victimised for forced absence during the pre-or post-natal period. 9. More or less, similar issue came to be considered by High Court of Kerala in Kerala Public Service Commission and others vs. Sini, K., MANU/KE/0345/2014 , which was testing the decision of Kerala Administrative Tribunal in providing the woman candidates who were passing through different milestones of pregnancy or maternity, second chance of undergoing physical test for the purpose of recruitment to the Excise Guards/ Women Police Constables, held as follows: “5. In its net effect, the decision of the Division Bench in K. Jayasree V. KPSC, MANU/KE/1061/2000 read with the order on the review petition is that a pregnant woman cannot be denied an opportunity to have adequate means of livelihood merely on account of the biological reason that she was unable to appear for the physical efficiency test at a given point of time and that a pregnant woman cannot be compelled to undergo the endurance test at a time when it was dangerous to her life and that of the baby in her womb. It was held that the effect of refusal on the part of the PSC to grant extension of time for such a woman to participate in the physical efficiency test would amount to denial of opportunity to get employment which would enable her to have a decent life. However, while issuing the order on the review petition, it was observed by this Court that the direction contained in the judgment dated 11-10-2000 in the writ appeal was issued taking into account the fact that the selection list had not been finalised in that case at the time when the motion was made and that the PSC will not be under an obligation to conduct fresh endurance test if motion therefor comes after the finalisation of the selection list. 6. While we are in agreement with the reasoning in K. Jayasree's case (supra), making reference to Article 42 of the Constitution of India and varied provisions in the Maternity Protection Conventions of the International Labour Organisation which were adopted in the General Conference of ILO at Geneva on 30-5-2000, we may state that though the said precedent was rendered noting that India had not ratified that convention, we are of the view that sharing responsibility of Government and society to provide protection for pregnancy as enunciated therein has to be applied in India as a seminal doctrine relatable to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and inexcusable as a salutary human right, not only of the pregnant woman and the child in the womb, or the mother and the child, but of the family as a basic unit of society. There is also nothing in Indian law which can be pointed out running contrary to the said content of the Maternity Protection Convention. There is also nothing in Indian law which can be pointed out running contrary to the said content of the Maternity Protection Convention. Therefore, it is within the ambit of the constitutional sanctions that the said document can be relied on from the international domain to decipher and give effect to India's obligations in the said field.” A similar view was also expressed by the High Court of Madras in R. Devika v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uninformed Recruitment Board and others , [2019 SCC OnLine Mad 392] 10. The notification was issued on 28.11.2024 for the selection of candidates. In terms of said notification, preliminary written test was conducted on 22.01.2023 and the petitioner successfully passed out and became eligible to take the next test i.e., Physical Measurement Test and Physical Efficiency Test. These tests came to be differed from time to time and finally were scheduled from 30.12.2024 to 01.02.2025. But for the petitioner, due to her pregnancy and delivery of baby on 28.08.2024, she would have been fit in competing with other candidates. The period between delivery and the date of test i.e., 03.01.2025 being just four months, it is difficult for her to regain fitness and compete with others. Even the respondents having realized such scenarios have permitted 405 such candidates who either have gone through pregnancy or of post pregnancy, to attend separate Physical Efficiency Test. Merely because there was a request by such candidates prior to participating in the test and that petitioner has not made such request, the reality does not change and that the physical fitness of petitioner cannot be equated with the other candidates. So long as petitioner is not disqualified from participating in selection process and having qualified for preliminary written test, the only other test to be passed being Physical Efficiency Test, biological reason should not be disadvantage to such candidate in competing with others. This Court, therefore, finds force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner should be permitted to participate in Physical Efficiency Test once again. The candidates who pass through Physical Efficiency Test are required to clear final written test, which is yet to be held. This Court, therefore, finds force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner should be permitted to participate in Physical Efficiency Test once again. The candidates who pass through Physical Efficiency Test are required to clear final written test, which is yet to be held. Since respondents have already permitted 405 candidates to defer with Physical Efficiency Test to be held after completion of final written test, the petitioner cannot be discriminated on the ground that she did not request for deferment, rather she be allowed to attend Physical Efficiency Test along with them. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent to allow the petitioner to participate in Physical Efficiency Test after completion of final written examination along with other 405 pregnant/post delivered women candidates whose cases have already been considered and deferred, subject to the respondents being satisfied with the medical reports to be submitted by the petitioner in support of her pregnancy and delivery. These directions are issued considering peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the same shall not be treated as Precedent. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.