1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6371/05 Smt. Pushpa Gupta vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 20/1/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri B.B.L. Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Aklesh Jain, Deputy Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** REPORTABLE The petitioner has challenged the order of the respondents dated 23.4.05 by which she was disallowed joining in service pursuant to her selection and appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III vide order dated 2.4.2005. Shri B.B.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner has subsequently been allowed to join duties on 28.4.2005, but the respondents are treating her appointment as a fresh appointment made on 28.4.05. They neither treating her appointment having been made pursuant to the original order, nor are they paying to her the salary for the intervening period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgement in the case of Smt. Manju Menaria vs. State & 2 Ors.-2005 (1) WLC (Raj.) 42, in which the division bench held such action of the respondents as bad in law and directed payment of back wages for the intervening period. Shri Aklesh Jain, learned Deputy Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that at the time of her joining, the petitioner was having pregnancy of three months, therefore, she could not be allowed to join the services. In the aforecited judgement of Smt. Manju Menaria, supra, the division bench held that there is no provision in any law that a pregnant woman should be debarred from appointment as Teacher Gr.II on the ground of pregnancy as pregnancy by itself cannot be regarded or termed as physical deficiency and abnormality in a woman's body as it is an usual natural biological outcome of a married woman's life. Act of the respondents in that case in terminating the services of the appellant was held to be not only a callous and cruel act but an open insult to indian womanhood. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment 3 applies to the present case on all its four corners. When a serving woman conceives and can still continue in service, there can be no reason for not allowing pregnant woman to join the service. The action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to join service only because she happened to be pregnant by three months at that time is declared to be wholly arbitrary and illegal. Such action would also be hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution being discriminatory qua newly appointed woman vis-a-vis those serving and also amount to discrimination against the petitioner only on the ground of sex, which would be violative of Article 15 of the Constitution. In the result, the impugned order dated 23.4.05 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed from the date of her original appointment and shall be deemed to have joined services on 6.4.2005 and would also be entitled to full back wages for the intervening period and consequential benefits. Compliance of the judgement be made 4 within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/