Scaling UPSC - Preksha Agrawal

This reflected the overall attitude of the Director and the Deputy Director towards her case. It revealed a troubling mindset — one that viewed a woman’s legal challenge and her need to be near her child not as a matter requiring compassionate consideration, but as something that should have been avoided. What should have been support turned into discouragement and further hurdles. It was sheer harassment in the form of rigid policies, denial of entry, and warnings against seeking legal recourse. The whole incident shows how far some people are willing to go simply because their ego is bigger than the welfare and equality guaranteed under the Constitution. This experience laid bare a painful truth: while society has moved forward, the mindset at responsible positions in some institutions has not. What should have been a welfare measure was weaponised. What should have been support for a medically fit officer and mother became exclusionary. The financial drain, the emotional toll on a young family, the professional discouragement for approaching the judiciary, and the multi-year delay in training — all of it showed how the system can work against a woman who refuses to be silenced. Even the Supreme Court, while disposing of her Special Leave Petition in July 2026 without granting immediate relief (primarily because a significant portion of the training had already progressed and the 95% attendance rule made partial joining impractical), acknowledged on merits that the 1993 OM is a beneficial welfare provision which should not be used to deny training to medically fit officers. The Court emphasised case-by-case assessment over blanket application and directed the CAT to decide the matter independently on merits, while protecting her seniority. The highest court saw the unreasonableness in the rigid approach. Yet on the ground, the resistance and the personal cost told a different story. Urvashi Sengar’s ordeal is not an isolated incident. It is a stark illustration of the difficulties faced by women in uniformed and civil services when they assert their rights, especially around maternity. Policies designed for protection become tools of exclusion when implemented without empathy or foresight. Legal avenues become sources of further obstacles when those in power discourage or penalise women for using them. The resulting career delays push back not just months, but years of service. Her story is one of quiet courage. She has continued preparing her submissions for the CAT, drawing strength from the Supreme Court’s observations on merits. She has shown that she is fit, capable, and ready to serve. But the price she has paid — in savings, in family stability, in emotional strain, and in facing discouragement for simply approaching the Tribunal — should never have been demanded of any officer, let alone a woman navigating early motherhood. The system must evolve. Training policies need urgent reform to become genuinely gender-sensitive, drawing from precedents in the IAS and aligning with constitutional values of equality and maternity rights. Women officers deserve support structures, not barriers. They deserve assessment based on merit, not warnings for seeking justice. And above all, they deserve that the mindset at positions of responsibility catches up with the times — so that no woman has to choose between her child and her career, or face exclusion for refusing to surrender either. Urvashi’s fight continues. It is a fight not just for herself, but for every woman who enters these services hoping to serve the nation without being broken by the very system she seeks to strengthen. Her resilience stands as proof that while policies and attitudes may try to hold women back, the spirit that refuses to accept injustice will keep pushing for change — until the system finally works for women, not against them.