Logo
Court Book - India Code App - Play Store

Karnataka High Court Directs KPSC to Hold Main Exam in Kalaburagi for Pregnant Candidate; Criticizes State's Reluctance

8 Apr 2025 7:08 PM - By Court Book (Admin)

Karnataka High Court Directs KPSC to Hold Main Exam in Kalaburagi for Pregnant Candidate; Criticizes State's Reluctance

The Karnataka High Court has intervened in support of a pregnant woman, directing the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) to conduct the Group-A main examination in Kalaburagi instead of the allotted centres in Bengaluru and Dharwad. This decision was made after the petitioner, Mahalaxmi, approached the Court stating she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and unable to travel long distances due to medical advice.

The petitioner had successfully cleared the preliminary examination and was eligible to appear for the main exam scheduled between April 15 and 19, 2025. She submitted that she resides in Kalaburagi and has been undergoing treatment there. Her doctors strictly advised her against traveling to other cities due to the risk involved in her condition. Despite this, KPSC declined her request, stating that all preparations including CCTV surveillance and strict security were already in place at the assigned centres, and conducting the exam for a single candidate in Kalaburagi would be an unreasonable task.

Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Orders Inspection of 49 BBMP Schools to Assess Infrastructure and Student Facilities

However, the High Court found merit in her plea. Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha criticized the commission’s rigid stance and noted:

“Our country is spending crores of rupees for conducting elections and bye-elections, if required. Due to lack of planning and vision, public money is frequently put to waste. But, here is a case, where the State submits before this Court that it cannot spend money to conduct an examination for a deserving candidate.”

The Court emphasized that women are entitled to special protection under the Constitution. Referring to Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, the Court held that denial of opportunity to the petitioner amounted to a violation of her fundamental rights.

The Court also dismissed KPSC’s claim that it could not arrange for CCTV and other infrastructure in Kalaburagi on short notice. It said:

“The petitioner is not requesting to write examinations at a place where there are no public offices, electricity supply, or where CC cameras could not be arranged. Where there is necessity to arrange CC cameras, they are being arranged immediately to protect law and order and situations alike.”

Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Halts Bike Taxi Operations Pending Regulations

Highlighting the practical challenges faced by the petitioner, the Court acknowledged that while it is generally mandatory to appear at the designated exam centre, exceptions must be considered in genuine situations like this one.

“In normal circumstances, candidates are required to attend the place where the examinations are scheduled to be held. However, 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.”

Read Also:- X Corp Challenges Sahyog Portal: Karnataka High Court Hears Arguments on IT Act Provisions

Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed KPSC to conduct the examination in Kalaburagi at any location of its choice and convenience, but within city limits. The location must be communicated to the petitioner by April 9, 2025.

The case titled Mahalaxmi vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Another (Writ Petition No. 201012 of 2025) saw Senior Advocate Skanda Kumar, representing Advocate Bhuwaneshwari, appear for the petitioner. The respondents were represented by Advocate R J Bhusare.

This decision by the Karnataka High Court is seen as a strong affirmation of women’s rights and equal opportunity in public employment, especially in circumstances involving genuine health concerns.