Summary
A Navy officer’s review succeeded because her appeal had been restored to the Armed Forces Tribunal on an issue that did not arise in her case. Applying the earlier binding directions on Permanent Commission, the Court ordered her to be reconsidered alone, without comparison to later batches or reliance on uncommunicated appraisal reports.
Issues
- Whether the prior Supreme Court order restoring the officer’s appeal to the Armed Forces Tribunal should be recalled when the sealed-cover natural-justice issue addressed there did not arise in her case.
- Whether the officer could be considered for Permanent Commission together with later batches despite the earlier directions requiring consideration of serving officers under the existing policy and Regulation 203.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court directed a stand-alone reconsideration and permitted a proportional increase in vacancies only if needed to accommodate the petitioner, without creating a precedent, to rectify the case-specific injustice without displacing another officer. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Held
- Because the issue concerning sealed-cover material that led to restoration of the appeal did not arise in the petitioner’s case, the ends of justice required recall of the prior order as it pertained to her. The Court then heard her appeal on the merits. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The petitioner was a serving JAG officer recruited in 2007 and was entitled to consideration under the binding directions in Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja. Requiring her to compete alongside officers of the later 2011 and 2014 batches introduced a condition absent from those directions and caused prejudice. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The Selection Board must reconsider the petitioner on a stand-alone basis, uninfluenced by its prior consideration or the AFT’s observations. Any uncommunicated Annual Confidential Report must be excluded. A proportional vacancy increase may be made only if required for her case, without precedent for the future or displacement of another officer. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
Result
Review petition disposed of; the prior order was recalled as it related to the petitioner, and the Selection Board was directed to reconsider her case for Permanent Commission by 15 April 2024. She remained free to pursue legal remedies against any later decision; her pending AFT proceedings were to stand disposed of.