Bombay High Court
Renuka Shivaji Bunage vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 4 May, 2026
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
2026:BHC-AUG:21460-DB
{1} 46-wp-11175-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11175 OF 2025
Renuka Shivaji Bunage
Age- 31, Occupation- Medical Practioner,
Resident of: Shivaji Bunage, D/98/8,
11 The Scheme, Shivajinagar, Garkheda Parisar,
Chh. Sambhajinagar, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Maharashtra- 431001. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The Union Of India
Through The Secretary of the Ministry of
Home Affairs, North- Block Centra Secretariat
New Delhi- 110001.
2. Director General, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)
CRPF, Headquarters, New Delhi.
3. Deputy Inspector General (PERS), CRPF,
Office of DIG (PERS), Complex, Lodhi Raod,
New Delhi- 110003.
4. Inspector General (Medical),
CRPF headquarters, New Delhi.
5. Deputy Inspector General (Medical)
Composite Hospital, CRPF, Pune,
Office of the DIG/Medical Superintendent
Composite hospital, CRPF, Talegaon, Pune
Maharashtra- 410507.
6. The Central Armed Police Forces
Medical Officer Selection Board- 2024
Through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India, Directorate General, Indo- Tibetan border police
force, North Block Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110001.
7. The Department of Personal and Training,
of the Government of India,
{2} 46-wp-11175-2025
Through its cabinet secretary,
North Block, New Delhi- 110001. ...Respondents
...
Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Rohit Patil, Advocate for the
Petitioner
Mr. Ajay Talhar, DSGI for respondents
.......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 04th MAY, 2026
JUDGMENT :[Per Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.] . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. This petition is filed for following reliefs:
A. Rule be issued.
B. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
order, or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by respondent No. 5 whereby the petitioners appointment to the post of Specialist medical officer, Grade - II (Junior Scale), in the rank of Deputy Commandant is kept in abeyance on the ground of pregnancy and for that purpose issue necessary orders;
C. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction to quash and set aside communication/order dated 21.08.2025, issued by the respondent No. 3, and for that purpose issue necessary orders;
D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ
{3} 46-wp-11175-2025
petition, the effect, execution, and implementation of the communication/order dated 21.08.2025, issued by the respondent No. 3, may kindly be stayed;
E. Pending the final hearing and final disposal of this petition, the effect, execution, and implementation of the office order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the respondent No. 5 may kindly be stayed;
F. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to join and continue her service as Specialist Medical Officer, Grade-II, (Junior Scale), in the rank of deputy commandant, CRPF, with effect from the date of reporting and for that purpose issue necessary orders; G. By issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order in the like nature, direct the respondent to accord the petitioner all service benefits, including seniority, pay, and allowances, from the date of joining as if no such order dated 13.08.20205 had been passed, and for that purpose issue necessary orders;
H. Interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause "D", "E" and "F" above may kindly be granted in favor of the petitioner.
I. Any other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem just, legal, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice may be granted.
3. Undisputed facts leading to the petition are that;
Pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No. 6, petitioner was selected in the selection process and appointed on the {4} 46-wp-11175-2025 post of Specialist Medical Officer, Grade- II (Junior Scale) by provisional appointment order dated 08.08.2025. Petitioner reported on duty on 09.08.2025 in the office of respondent No. 3 and completed all the requisite formalities and procedural compliance. By placing reliance on Swamy's Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration for Central Government Officers, on 13.08.2025, respondent No. 5 issued office order whereby appointment of the petitioner to the said post was kept in abeyance on the ground that in the medical examination petitioner was found 16 weeks pregnant and therefore, was declared temporarily unfit for joining. Being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondents. Perused the record and affidavit in reply filed by respondents.
5. Respondents are misinterpreting the provisions of Swamy's Manual for keeping the appointment of the petitioner in abeyance. On perusal of said provision, which is in respect of Employment of women candidates in a state of pregnancy, sub clause (a) stated that, where a pregnancy women candidates is to be appointed against a post carrying hazardous nature of duties e.g., in Police Organization, etc. The candidate will be declared temporarily unfit if she is carrying {5} 46-wp-11175-2025 pregnancy of 12 weeks or more. By relying on this clause, respondents have declared the petitioner unfit. Clause (b) of the said Manual provides for appointments against posts which do not prescribe any elaborate training- It shall no longer be necessary to declare a woman candidate as temporarily unfit if she is found to be pregnant during medical examination before appointment against posts which do not prescribe any elaborate training i.e. she can be appointed straightway on the job.
6. Learned DSGI has placed reliance on clause 5(vi) of the provisional appointment order, which stipulates that, "the post of Specialist Medical Officer in CRPF is combatised and you will have to undergo 15 days familiarization training at the reporting Composite Hospital. You are also required to undergo Medical Officers Combatisation Course, as and when detailed."
7. We are unable to agree with the interpretation put forth by learned DSGI that the petitioner was to undergo training, therefore, her appointment is rightly kept in abeyance. It cannot be disputed that the job of a medical officer is not analogous to the job of police officer. For the job of police officer they have to undergo strict physical training. Though, in the provisional appointment order in clause 5(vi) it is mentioned that petitioner will have to undergo 15 days {6} 46-wp-11175-2025 familiarization training at the reporting Composite Hospital, that training cannot be equated with the training which is to be undergone by police officers considering the nature of duties to be discharged by the petitioner and by the police officers. The said clause further provides that, petitioner will be required to undergo Medical Officers Combatisation Course, as and when detailed. So, immediately the petitioner need not to undergo said course, even if it comprises of physical training etc.
8. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has rightly relied on Union of India and Others Vs. Kamal Kishore and Others 1. By the said judgment, practice of relying upon private books for purpose of defeating rights of citizens is deprecated by the Apex Court.
Reliance is also placed on Single Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Neetu Bala Vs. Union of India2, which is rendered in similar facts. By relying on decision of the Apex Court Court in Air India v. Nergesh Meerza 3 as well as various foreign conventions, it is held that;
"25. As the applicant rightly argues, pregnancy is not in any way comparable with a pathological condition, and even less so with unavailability for work on non-medical grounds, both of which are situations that may justify the dismissal of a woman without discriminating on grounds 1 (2018) 12 SCC 695 2 2016 LAB. I.C. 1649 3 (1981) 4 SCC 335 {7} 46-wp-11175-2025 of sex. Moreover, in Handels- og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund i Danmark v. Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening (Case C-179/88) [1992] I.C.R. 332, the court drew a clear distinction between pregnancy and illness, even where the illness is attributable to pregnancy but manifests itself after the maternity leave. As the court pointed out, at paragraph 16, there is no reason to distinguish such an illness from any other illness.
27. In circumstances such as those of the applicant, termination of a contract for an indefinite period on grounds of the woman's pregnancy cannot be justified by the fact that she is prevented, on a purely temporary basis, from performing the work for which she has been engaged: see Habermann-Beltermann v. Arbeiterwohlfahrt, Bezirksverband Ndb./Opf. eV (Case C- 421/92) [1994] 2 C.M.L.R. 681, 695, para. 25, and paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Advocate General's opinion in this case, ante pp. 962B-963C.
67. Based on the aforesaid discussion, there can be no conclusion other than to hold that the action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner merely on account of her pregnancy is arbitrary and illegal. It is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is against the express provisions of the International Conventions referred to above. It is against the weight of the judicial precedents from major jurisdictions across the globe interpreting laws prohibiting gender discrimination. Most of all by forcing a choice between bearing a child and employment, it interferes both, with her reproductive rights and her right to employment. Such an action can have no place in modern India.
68. Page 5 of the Appendix to DGAFMS/DG-3A letter No.9450/USG Abd/DGAFMS/DG-3A dated 22.10.2009 to the extent it lays down that pregnancy would render a {8} 46-wp-11175-2025 candidate UNFIT for commissioning is also illegal and unconstitutional and is so declared.
69. However, keeping in view the nature and responsibilities of the job in question, it would be open to the respondents to devise any appropriate procedure to either give appointment on selection and grant maternity leave or keep a vacancy against which the woman candidate who is pregnant was selected, reserved for her to be offered to her after confinement."
9. We are in respectful agreement with the above view expressed by learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
10. In the reply affidavit, respondents have contended that, "petitioner should be re-examined for a fitness certificate six weeks after the date of confinement, subject to the production of medical certificate of fitness from a registered medical practitioner. The vacancy against which the woman candidate was selected should be kept reserved for her. If petitioner is found fit petitioner may be appointed to the post kept reserved for her and allowed the benefit of seniority in accordance with Para-4 of Annexure of M.H.A., O.M. No. 9/11/55-RPS, dated the 22 December 1959 (Appendix-D)."
11. As we have already observed that the impugned order is passed by wrongly relying upon Swamy's Manual and by misinterpreting clauses in the provisional appointment order, which in our view are not {9} 46-wp-11175-2025 applicable to the facts of the present case, we are inclined to allow the petition.
12. Writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B', 'C' and 'G'.
13. Petitioner be permitted to join her duty, subject to the fitness certificate issued by respondent No. 5, within a period of 2 weeks form the date of uploading of this order.
Rule is made absolute to the above extent.
(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Bhagyawant Punde