17. As far as the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.35631/2010 is concerned, it is a fact that, she could not attain 60% target during the relevant year, as she was a pregnant woman. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Occupational Health and Safety Association V. Union of India and others (2014 (1) KHC SN 19 (SC)) and the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Thiruvananthapuram Bench) in Jisha Pavoor and another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and another (2014 (1) KHC 354) the learned Counsel for the petitioner in that Writ Petition would contend that, Article 42 of the Constitution of India enjoins the State to make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief and the stand of the respondent-Bank that a pregnant women should lose her opportunity for extension of period of contract appointment only for the reason that she could not attain the prescribed target during such period is in direct conflict with the duty cast on the respondent-Bank, under Article 42 of the Constitution of India. The documents relating to the treatment the petitioner had undergone are not on record. Due to dearth of materials, I am unable to consider such a plea made by the petitioner. But, it is made clear that, the respondent-Bank, which has the trappings of ‘State’ being ‘other authority’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, should keep in mind that, if a pregnant women lose her opportunity to get extension of her term of contract or absorption in service only for the reason that it was not safe for her to achieve the target prescribed by the respondent-Bank for such extension or absorption, it would be in direct conflict with the duty cast under Article 42 of the Constitution of India.
