Summary
The Supreme Court held arbitrary the exclusion of years of women Army officers’ confidential reports when considering promotion to Colonel after grant of Permanent Commission. Ostensible parity with historical male-batch cutoffs defeated the governing policy and the earlier Nitisha judgment. It directed a fresh Special No.3 Selection Board exercise within a fortnight, using the stated common June 2021 cutoff, while protecting existing empanelments, promotions and seniority.
Issues
- Whether historical male-batch cutoffs lawfully excluded later confidential reports of the women officers.
- What reconsideration was required without disturbing existing promotions.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaThe arbitrary exclusion of substantial service records violated fairness and the women officers’ right to consideration under the applicable framework. (¶ 18–22)
- 7 October 2002; 17 March 2011; 31 October 2013; 23 December 2017, Army Military Secretary’s Branch policy communicationsThe applicable selection framework required proper consideration of confidential reports after nine years’ reckonable service, recognised their dominant weight and did not justify excluding many years merely to mirror past male-batch cutoffs. (¶¶ 4–8, 18–20)
Held
- Although the earlier Nitisha decision concerned Permanent Commission, its principles and the Army’s own promotion policies precluded the arbitrary exclusion of years of the women officers’ subsequent records. (¶¶ 18–19, 22)
- Preserving additional inputs for the first and final reviews could justify excluding the last two reports at earlier looks. It did not justify wholesale exclusion of several years of reports by historical male-batch cutoffs. (¶¶ 16, 20)
- The vacancy objection failed in light of the recorded commitment to make 150 vacancies available and the admitted filling of 108. (¶ 22)
- Special No.3 Selection Board was to be reconvened within a fortnight for the women officers considered earlier who remained unempanelled. The Attorney General stated that a common June 2021 cutoff would be used. (¶ 23(i)–(ii))
- The retired officer specifically identified by the Court was also to be considered. Existing empanelments, promotions and seniority were expressly protected from disturbance. (¶ 23(iii)–(iv))
Result
Miscellaneous applications disposed of with directions for fresh consideration within a fortnight on the stated common cutoff, including the specified retired officer, without affecting existing empanelments, promotions or seniority. Pending applications disposed of.