“State Cannot Deny Responsibility”: Karnataka High Court Directs KPSC to Conduct Exam for Pregnant Candidate at Kalaburagi, Citing Violation of Articles 14, 15 & 16
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha has held that where a candidate faces a medically documented inability to travel due to advanced pregnancy, the State is not justified in refusing to conduct a public recruitment examination at her place of residence. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct the Group-A main examination for the petitioner at Kalaburagi, as per their logistical convenience, and to communicate the centre details by 09.04.2025.
The petitioner submitted her application in response to a recruitment notification issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) in 2024 for various Group-A and B posts. After successfully clearing the preliminary stage, she became eligible to appear for the main examination, scheduled to be held from 15.04.2025 to 19.04.2025.
The KPSC designated only Bengaluru and Dharwad as the centres for the main examination. The petitioner, a resident of Kalaburagi, stated that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and was receiving medical treatment locally. Based on medical advice, she submitted that any travel outside Kalaburagi posed a serious risk to her health and well-being.
In light of these circumstances, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to KPSC to allow her to appear for the examination in Kalaburagi. The petition also sought an interim restraint on the Commission from compelling her to travel to the designated centres.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the KPSC notification did not specify the dates or venues of the preliminary or main examinations at the time of application, and hence the petitioner had no reason to anticipate the need to travel. He submitted that the advanced stage of pregnancy constituted a valid and exceptional reason to seek accommodation in the form of an examination centre in Kalaburagi.
In response, counsel for the respondents submitted that KPSC had made arrangements to conduct the examination only at Bengaluru and Dharwad. The examination would be conducted under strict surveillance with CC cameras. According to KPSC, conducting the exam at an alternate location for a single candidate would require a significant logistical and security arrangement, which could not be undertaken for individual convenience.
The respondent further submitted that conducting an exam at an additional centre for a single candidate would be administratively burdensome and logistically infeasible, and therefore, the petition deserved to be dismissed.
The Court noted that along with the recruitment notification, no detailed schedule or examination centre list was published. It further acknowledged that the petitioner had approached the Court based on credible medical advice, which advised against travel due to the risks associated with her condition.
The Court noted: “The petitioner is before this Court vindicating her grievance that she being a pregnant woman that too at the advanced stage of pregnancy, cannot take up travel and as per medical advice, her life would be at risk in case she takes up such travel.”
It stated: “Though employment is not a fundamental right, right to livelihood is guaranteed under the Constitution. On becoming pregnant, except begetting a child, the woman will have no other option. Of course, termination of pregnancy is permitted under exceptional circumstances.”
The Court discussed constitutional mandates: “By Article 14 of the Constitution of India the State is prevented from denying equality before law or equal protection of laws within the territory of India.”
It further stated: “Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India empowers the State to make special provisions for women and children.”
“Article 16 of the Constitution of India states that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”
The Court referred to Directive Principles: “Article 39 which is in Part IV of the Constitution of India envisages that the State shall direct its policy towards securing its citizens men and women equally, the right to an adequate means of livelihood.”
It stated: “These salutary provisions cannot be overlooked. Denial of opportunity to the petitioner certainly amounts to violation of her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
Regarding logistics, the Court stated: “The petitioner is not requesting the Court to permit her to write examination at a place where there are no public offices, no electricity supply or where CC cameras cannot be arranged.”
It noted: “Where there is necessity to arrange CC cameras, they are being arranged immediately to protect law and order and situations alike.”
The Court added: “Therefore, this Court is of the view that the State cannot deny taking responsibility to conduct examination to the petitioner at the city where she stays in the light of the justifiable grounds she projected.”
The Court acknowledged the standard norms: “In normal circumstances, candidates are required to attend the place where the examinations are scheduled to be held.”
However, it recorded: “In the case on hand, the petitioner is not in a position to travel either to Dharwad or to Bengaluru all the way from Kalaburagi.”
“Therefore, this Court is of the view that a direction as sought for is required to be issued to the Karnataka Public Service Commission to conduct the examination for the petitioner at Kalaburagi.”
The Court issued the following directives:
“A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondents to conduct the examination to the petitioner anywhere at Kalaburagi as per their choice and convenience.”
“The centre of examination at Kalaburagi be intimated to the petitioner by 09.04.2025.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. Skanda Kumar, Senior Counsel, for Miss Bhuwaneshwari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. R.J. Bhusare, Advocate
Case Title: Mahalaxmi v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-K:2168
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 201012 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha
[Read/Download order]
