Lt. Col. Pooja Pal vs Union Of India - Permanent Commission for Women Officers

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 7, Cited by 0 ] ### Supreme Court of India

Lt. Col. Pooja Pal vs Union Of India on 24 March, 2026

Author: Surya Kant

Bench: Surya Kant

2026 INSC 281 REPORTABLE

                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           Civil Appeal Nos. 9747 - 9757 / 2024

        Lt. Col. Pooja Pal and others                               …Appellant(s)

                                          versus

        Union of India and others                                  …Respondent(s) With

                           Civil Appeal Nos. 9745 - 9746 / 2024

                         Civil Appeal Nos. 10713 - 10714 / 2024

                         Civil Appeal Nos. 14090 - 14093 / 2024

                              Civil Appeal No. 14099 / 2024

                         Civil Appeal Nos. 13496 - 13511 / 2024

                           Civil Appeal Nos. 5327 - 5331 / 2025

                           Civil Appeal No. ___________ / 2025
                         (Arising out of Diary No. 57908 / 2024)

                           Civil Appeal No. ___________ / 2025
                         (Arising out of Diary No. 33090 / 2025)

                           Civil Appeal No. ___________ / 2025 Signature Not Verified (Arising out of Diary No. 33222 / 2025) Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2026.03.24 11:47:57 IST Reason: Page 1 of 60 JUDGEMENT

SURYA KANT, CJI.

Applications for intervention and impleadment are allowed, and the

  Applicants therein are directed to be impleaded as Intervenors.

1. The instant batch of appeals has been preferred by a group of roughly 73

   Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) of the Indian Army, the vast

   majority of whom are women seeking the grant of Permanent

   Commission (PC). Their grievances centre on the fairness and

   reasonableness of the method adopted for their consideration, an issue

   that has repeatedly engaged Constitutional Courts and the relevant

   Tribunals over the last two decades.

2. To succinctly summarise the instant appeals, the Short Service

   Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) approached the Armed Forces

   Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi (AFT), praying for the grant of

   PC. However, vide judgements dated 03.07.2024 and 04.09.2024

   (Impugned Judgements), the AFT dismissed their Original Applications

   (OAs), holding that there was no discrimination or bias against the

   SSCWOs and that the denial of PC was solely attributable to lower

   comparative merit. Notably, a few of their male counterparts, who were

   commissioned alongside them in September 2010 and March 2011, have

   also assailed the Impugned Judgements, aligning themselves with the

   women officers on certain common issues.

Page 2 of 60 A. FACTS

1. Before examining the legal aspects involved in dissecting the Appellants’

   claims, it is incumbent upon us to trace the factual background that has

   culminated in the instant set of appeals.

4.1. The Appellant-SSCWOs belong to:

(i) Course No. 4 (SSCWOs-4) commissioned in September 2010;

(ii) Course No. 5 (SSCWOs-5) commissioned in March 2011;

(iii) Course No. 6 (SSCWOs-6) commissioned in September 2011; and

(iv) Course No. 7 (SSCWOs-7) commissioned in March 2012.
Two of the Intervenor-Appellants belong to Course Nos. 9 and 10,

  respectively. The male SSCOs commissioned in September 2010 (SSC-

90) are the counterparts of SSCWOs-4, while those commissioned in

  March 2011 (SSC-91) correspond to SSCWOs-5. Some of the male

  SSCOs come from the September 2011 and March 2012 batches. On the

  other hand, the Respondents before us comprise the Union of India

  represented through the Ministry of Defence, the Chief of Army Staff, and

  the Military Secretary.

4.2. The Appellant-SSCWOs mentioned above form part of the earliest

  batches to be considered for the grant of PC alongside their male

  counterparts by the bi-annual regular No. 5 Selection Board. At the time,

  their joint consideration was intended to represent a watershed moment

  in the evolution of gender parity within the Armed Forces. Yet, as Page 3 of 60 contended by the Appellant-SSCWOs, this formal parity often operated

 against the backdrop of service records shaped by varying evaluation

 regimes, much like asking runners, trained for years on different tracks,

 to compete suddenly on the same finishing stretch.

4.3. To appreciate the nature of their grievances and to understand why they

 have chosen to approach this Court, it is essential to first note the

 structure of the officer cadre in the Army. Broadly, it is divided into two

 categories: (i) the regular cadre, comprising Permanent Commission

 officers (PC officers); and (ii) the support cadre, which includes

 Permanent Commission (Special List) Officers, Service Commission

 Officers, and SSCOs.

4.4. The distinction between these cadres lies principally in tenure, career

 progression, and post-retirement benefits. While PC officers serve until

 the age of superannuation, SSCOs serve for a fixed tenure and are

 thereafter released from service. The scheme for the induction of SSCOs

 was introduced in 1964 and, at its inception, was open only to men.

 Initially, such officers were appointed for a tenure of five years, which

 was later extended to a ‘5 + 5’ model, with consideration for PC in the

 fifth year of service. Furthermore, in the Army, officers of two courses are

 commissioned in one calendar year, i.e. the officers of the 1st course are

 commissioned     in   March,   while   officers   of   the   2nd   course   are

 commissioned in September of the same year. The officers of both

 courses, together, are referred to as the batch of a particular year. Page 4 of 60 4.5. The policy governing the grant of PC was modified by a policy circular

 dated 15.01.1991 issued by the Government of India. This policy

 prescribed, inter alia, an annual cap of 250 vacancies for the grant of PC,

 a minimum cut-off score of 60%, and competitive selection on merit in

 circumstances where the number of eligible officers exceeded the

 prescribed ceiling. All SSCOs other than non-optees and those found

 unfit for retention were to be granted a five-year extension. The policy

 was implemented with immediate effect. Its relevant part reads as

 follows:

“(a) A maximum of 250 SSCOs will be granted Permanent
Commission per year. The number of vacancies for the
batches within the year will be allotted in proportion
to their inter se strength.

(b) Minimum acceptable cut-off grant for grant of Permanent
Commission to SSCOs will be 60%. This may, however, be
reviewed by the Army HQs, every two years, keeping in
view the rating tendencies as at that time.

(c) In case more than the specified number of officers
make the grade from the batches considered in a year,
the requisite number only, i.e., 250 will be granted
Permanent Commission on competitive merit.

(d) All SSCOs, other than non-optees and those considered
unfit for retention by the Selection Board, will be granted
five year extension.”
[Sic] [Emphasis supplied]

4.6. This policy circular was supplemented by a File Noting dated 22.01.1991,

which elaborated the mechanism for distributing PC vacancies across

batches in proportion to their respective strengths and illustrated the

method of calculation. It, inter alia, provides the following: Page 5 of 60

“2. The modalities for the implementation of the Govt. order
ibid will be as under:-

a. The grant of PRC to the total No of SSCOs in a batch
will be based on the Inter se batch strengths in one
calendar year.

b. The No of PRC vacancies allotted to a batch, which are
arrived of by applying the above ratio, would not be
transferrable to the next batch even within the same
calendar year:

c. In the calculation of the vacancies per batch, fractions
would be rounded off to the next higher for the batch having
a greater strength and, neglected for the smaller batch of
the some calendar year.

1. The above is illustrated with the following example –

X Year

(a) Let 1 course intake be -240 GC’s

(b) Let 2 course intake be -80 GC’s

(c) Total intake for the year -320 GC’s

(d) Nos to be selected from the 1st course -240 x 250/320
= 187.5, say 188

(e) Nos to be selected from the 2nd course -80 x 250/320
= 62.5, say 62

(f) Total Nos to be selected in the year -188+62=250”
[Sic] [Emphasis supplied]

4.7. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the above-extracted policy

circular and File Noting were issued at a time when women were

altogether excluded from induction into the Army. This position changed

the following year, when, on 15.02.1992, the Government of India issued

a notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, making women

eligible for appointment as officers in limited cadres. Women were

inducted through the Women Special Entry Scheme (WSES) as SSCOs Page 6 of 60 for an initial tenure of five years, with an express stipulation that they

would not be eligible for PC and would be released upon completion of

their service.

4.8. Over time, the tenure of women officers was extended through

  notifications dated 12.12.1996 and 28.10.2005, resulting in a total

  permissible tenure of fourteen years, structured as ‘5 + 5 + 4’ years.

  Despite these extensions, women officers continued to remain ineligible

  for consideration for PC.

4.9. Dissatisfaction with this arrangement culminated in the filing of a public

  interest litigation by Adv. Babita Puniya, before the High Court of Delhi

  (High Court), seeking parity for women officers in the consideration for

  PC. This marked the beginning of a prolonged series of interconnected

  litigation that eventually reshaped the service conditions of women

  officers in the Army for the better.

4.10. During the pendency of those proceedings, the Union Government issued

  two   circulars   dated     20.07.2006,   discontinuing   the   WSES    and

  introducing a new framework for commissioning women officers in

  technical and non-technical cadres within the Army. While these

  circulars modified training, tenure, and seniority provisions, they

  reiterated that women officers would not be eligible for PC, though they

  could seek a four-year extension after their initial term of ten years of

  service. The scheme of engagement was accordingly altered to ‘10 + 4’

  years, which continues to hold the field. The first batch of women officers Page 7 of 60 under the new scheme, i.e. Course No. 1 (SSCWOs-1), was commissioned

  shortly thereafter.

4.11. The High Court, in the meantime, passed the landmark judgement in Babita Puniya v. Secretary1 on 12.03.2010, holding that once women

  were inducted into certain cadres, there could be no discrimination in

  the opportunities available to them within those cadres. By virtue of this

  finding, the High Court directed that in cadres where both men and

  women were recruited as SSCOs and where men were granted PC, the

  women officers were entitled to be considered for PC at par with their

  male counterparts. The Respondents assailed this decision before this

  Court through Civil Appeal No. 9367-9369/2011. During the pendency

  of the appeal, this Court vide an order dated 02.09.2011, declined to stay

  the operation of the High Court’s judgement and clarified that the same

  had remained in force from the date of its pronouncement since no order

  of stay had ever been passed against it. It is pertinent to note that all the

  instant Appellant-SSCWOs were commissioned after the pronouncement

  of the High Court’s decision and thus, at the time of their induction into

  the Army, they were entitled to consideration for the grant of PC.

4.12. Parallelly, by virtue of a letter dated 26.09.2008, later implemented

  through another letter dated 04.10.2010, women officers of the Judge

  Advocate General (JAG) and Army Education Corps. (AEC) cadres were

  made eligible for consideration and grant of PC alongside their male

  counterparts. The effect of these letters was that, though women were

1 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116.

Page 8 of 60 being commissioned in ten Arms and Services in the Army and despite

 the authoritative pronouncement by the High Court, eligibility for PC was

 confined to JAG and AEC cadres for women officers.

4.13. Shortly thereafter, a comprehensive policy dated 24.02.2012 was issued,

 detailing a structured methodology for the grant of PC to all the eligible

 SSCOs through a combination of objective and subjective criteria. To do

 so, the marks were apportioned between ‘computerised evaluation’ and

 ‘value judgement’ in a way whereby the former was assigned a weightage

 of 95%, while 5% weightage was reserved for the latter. The value

 judgement marking was to be rendered by the members of the No. 5

 Selection Board.

4.14. Under this policy, a computerised Member Data Sheet (MDS) was

 generated, capturing the year-wise performance of each officer in their

 respective Courses, Special Achievements, Weak Points, Disciplinary

 Awards, and Honours and Awards. This would be accompanied by the

 recommendations of the Initiating Officer (IO) and Reporting Officer (RO)

 for the grant of PC or extension. The value judgement exercised by the

 members of the No. 5 Selection Board was required to take into account

 all the material reflected in the MDS, including liberal/strict reporting

 inconsistency in performance, nature and seriousness of disciplinary

 award(s), technical assessment, performance on courses, strong and

 weak points reflected in the pen picture, and appointments held by the

 officer under consideration.

Page 9 of 60 4.15. To arrive at the computerised evaluation in the MDS, the Military

 Secretary’s   Branch    (MS   Branch)   would    compute       the   relevant

 information, allot marks, and work out averages for the following

 parameters:

i. OAP: This is the overall performance of the officer, evaluated by

taking the average of the figurative assessment of all ROs in the

Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), to be converted into a

proportion of 75 marks.

ii. Honours and Awards: Marks allotted differ as per the

honour/award received and are added, subject to the condition

that the maximum marks granted in this category will not exceed
5 marks.

iii. Games and Sports/Special Achievements: Similarly, the marks

        are awarded as per the level represented, wherein marks for each

        achievement will be added, subject to the condition that the

        maximum will not exceed 5 marks.

iv. Performance on Courses: Here, the grading obtained on each

        course will be quantified out of 10 marks, and the average shall be

        taken of all courses attended.

v. Recommendation for PC and Extension of Service: In this, the

        recommendation of each RO in every ACR will be awarded with 0

        marks for ‘YES’ and minus 2 marks for ‘NO’. However, if any officer Page 10 of 60 has mentioned ‘Not Applicable’ (NA), it will be indicated in the

         evaluation chest by code ‘C’.

vi. Weak Points: Minus 5 marks are awarded for reflection of any of

         the weaknesses listed.

For the conduct of the No. 5 Selection Board, the quantified marks for

  the overall performance of the officer would be obtained by adding the

  marks assigned for value judgement to the computerised evaluation.

  Finally, the members of the No. 5 Selection Board were also required to

  award a letter-grading to each of the officers under consideration, the

  options for which included: ‘B’ (recommended for PC); ‘BE’ (recommended

  for extension only); ‘Z’ (rejected for PC and extension); ‘W’ (withdrawn);

  and ‘D’ (deferred).

4.16. Against this backdrop, the process for convening the regular No. 5

  Selection Board commenced with the issuance of instructions to the

  officers of SSCWOs-4 and SSC-90 on 17.01.2020. At that point in time,

  as a matter of policy, only SSCWOs in JAG and AEC cadres were eligible

  for PC, while all the others were to be considered only for a four-year

  extension.

4.17. Exactly a month later, on 17.02.2020, this Court pronounced its decision

  in [Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya,2](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117198144/) affirming the earlier

  judgement of the High Court and directing the Respondents to consider

  all serving SSCWOs for the grant of PC, irrespective of whether any of

2 (2020) 7 SCC 469.

Page 11 of 60 them had completed fourteen years of service. To give effect to these

 directions, the Respondents convened a Special No. 5 Selection Board for

 SSCWOs commissioned between 1992 and 2009, who had not been

 considered for PC at the relevant time alongside their male counterparts.

4.18. As this decision coincided with the consideration cycle of the instant

 Appellants of SSCWOs-4 and SSC-90, their regular No. 5 Selection Board

 was rescheduled, and the officers were granted extensions in the

 meantime. Consequently, two parallel Selection Boards were held in

 2020: (i) a Special Board for earlier batches of SSCWOs, as per the

 directions of this Court in [Babita Puniya](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159839005/) (supra); and (ii) a regular

 Board for SSCWOs-4, SSCWOs-5, SSC-90, and SSC-91, who had just

 become eligible for consideration for PC, having completed 10 years of

 service. The Respondents also issued further instructions, calling for

 fresh applications from SSCWOs-4 and 5 so that they could opt for PC

 and be considered accordingly.

4.19. The Respondents accordingly issued General Instructions dated

 01.08.2020 to conduct the Special No. 5 Selection Board between

 14.09.2020 and 25.09.2020, whereby 615 women officers commissioned

 from 1992 to 2009 would be considered for PC, excluding the officers

 from JAG and AEC cadres. Such officers were excluded from this Board

 as they had previously been deemed eligible to be considered for PC and

 had been duly considered at the relevant time with their male

 counterparts. As such, they fell beyond the scope of this Court’s

 directions and did not require to be considered a second time. Page 12 of 60 4.20. Simultaneously, the Respondents issued General Instructions dated

  14.08.2020 to conduct the regular No. 5 Selection Board to consider the

  officers of SSCWOs-4, SSCWOs-5, SSC-90, and SSC-91 for the grant

  of PC.

4.21. In the meantime, the MS Branch instructed all IOs and ROs vide a letter

  dated 23.10.2020 to fill the ACRs of the women officers ‘carefully’, as they

  had become eligible to be considered for PC. This clarification was

  prompted by the fact that ROs were still erroneously endorsing ‘NA’ in

  the column regarding ‘recommendation for PC’ for the SSCWOs.

4.22. The results of the Special No. 5 Selection Board were declared on

  19.11.2020, whereby the women officers were considered “on the same

  terms and criteria as their male counterparts” and were benchmarked

  against the last selected male officer. Aggrieved by this benchmarking,

  the manner in which the Special No. 5 Selection Board was conducted,

  and the steps taken by the Union to implement this Court’s decision in [Babita Puniya](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159839005/) (supra), multiple SSCWOs approached this Court once

  again, by virtue of Writ Petitions filed under [Article 32](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/981147/) of the

  Constitution. The lead matter in this batch of petitions was Writ Petition

  (C) No. 1109/2020, titled Lt. Col. [Nitisha and Ors. v. Union of India

  and Ors](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8571728/).

4.23. While this Court was seized of the above-stated batch of Writ Petitions,

  the regular No. 5 Selection Board for the 4 courses previously stated was

  conducted in December 2020. The results were promptly posted on Page 13 of 60 11.01.2021, revealing a low success rate for women officers, with only

  34.4% of the officers in SSCWOs-4 and 27.27% of the officers in

  SSCWOs-5 being granted PC.

4.24. Shortly after the results of the regular No. 5 Selection Board were

  declared, this Court pronounced its judgement dated 25.03.2021 in

  Nitisha v. Indian Army,3 directing the Respondents to grant PC to all

  the SSCWOs who fulfilled the cut-off grade of 60% in the Special No. 5

  Selection Board, subject to their meeting the medical criteria prescribed

  by the General Instructions dated 01.08.2020. The effect of this

  judgement was that, out of 615 SSCWOs considered for the grant of PC

  through the Special No. 5 Selection Board, 507 were granted PC, while

  108 others were allowed to continue in service till completion of 20 years’

  pensionable service. Such a decision was rendered based on this Court’s

  finding that the pattern of evaluation employed by the Army to implement

  the decision of [Babita Puniya](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159839005/) (supra), namely, the benchmarking

  against the last selected male officer, disproportionately affected women

  due to years of casual grading and skewed incentive structures.

4.25. Dissatisfied with the results dated 11.01.2021 and the outcome of their

  respective statutory complaints, as well as in a bid to seek similar relief

  as was granted in Lt. Col. [Nitisha](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8571728/) (supra), the instant Appellant-

  SSCWOs approached the AFT with their individually-filed OAs. Through

  these OAs, they prayed for: (i) A direction to call for the records based on

  which the Respondents issued the letter dated 14.08.2020 and the policy

3 (2021) 15 SCC 125.

Page 14 of 60 circular dated 15.01.1991; (ii) A direction to the Respondents to conduct

 a Special No. 5 Selection Board to consider the Appellants for the grant

 of PC, and to be granted PC if they crossed the 60% cut-off without any

 upper limit on vacancies; and (iii) Alternatively, to be permitted to serve

 till completion of 20 years’ service to enable them to earn pension. On

 some similar grounds, the male officers of SSC-90 and SSC-91 also

 approached the AFT, praying for identical relief.

4.26. While these OAs were pending before the AFT, the Respondents

 proceeded to conduct the regular No. 5 Selection Board for the next

 batches, i.e. SSCWOs-6 with their male counterparts, and SSCWOs-7

 alongside their male counterparts. Both these No. 5 Selection Boards

 were convened in 2021, and the results were declassified on 02.07.2021

 and 06.12.2021, respectively. It seems that in these Selection Boards,

 the women officers did not fare substantially better than their seniors,

 leading to further challenges before the AFT, praying for identical reliefs

 as the batches preceding them.

4.27. The AFT, in the Impugned Judgements, considered whether the

 Appellant-SSCWOs were entitled to be considered as per the parameters

 of the Special No. 5 Selection Board, with modifications, as directed in

 Lt. Col. [Nitisha](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8571728/) (supra) and whether the Respondents were justified in

 considering the Appellant-SSCWOs in the regular No. 5 Selection Board

 alongside their male counterparts. Upon answering the first issue in the

 negative and the latter issue in the affirmative, the AFT dismissed the Page 15 of 60 Appellants’ applications and rejected their prayer for leave to appeal to

this Court. Ultimately, the AFT opined that:

i. Babita Puniya (supra) and Lt. Col. Nitisha (supra) applied to the

Appellant-SSCWOs only to the limited extent of considering them

for PC based on the existing policies. The decisive distinction lay

in the fact that SSCWOs considered by the Special No. 5 Selection

Board had never been considered for PC at the relevant time,

despite their male counterparts having been evaluated. Whereas

the Appellant-SSCWOs were considered contemporaneously with

their male counterparts and thus suffered no prejudice from

delayed consideration. On this basis alone, they were not entitled

to the benefit of the directions in Lt. Col. Nitisha (supra). Further,

as the reliefs in the earlier judgements were granted under the

aegis of Article 142 of the Constitution, the AFT opined that it

lacked the authority to extend similar relief to subsequent batches.

ii. The policy circular dated 15.01.1991 continued to govern all PC

considerations, having never been amended or withdrawn. Since

SSCWOs of the JAG and AEC cadres were granted PC within the

ceiling of 250 vacancies, the policy was effectively gender-neutral

in operation.

iii. Breach of the 250-vacancy cap occurred solely during exigencies

such as the Kargil War or Operation Parakram and only with the

prior approval of the MS Branch. Similarly, special sanction had Page 16 of 60 been obtained for additional vacancies created for the Special No.
5 Selection Board. As cadre strength, intake, and vacancies fell

  within the exclusive domain of Cadre Controlling Authorities

  guided by operational requirements, occasional deviations from

  the cap did not justify the creation of further vacancies to

  accommodate officers not selected on comparative merit.

iv. The No. 5 Selection Board is convened twice in a calendar year to

  consider two consecutive batches commissioned in September of

  one year and in March of the subsequent year, respectively, and

  not the two courses commissioned within the same calendar year.

  The annual ceiling of 250 vacancies is accordingly apportioned

  between the two batches considered by the Boards conducted in

  the same year, a practice consistently followed since the inception

  of the scheme in 1991.

v. The Appellant-SSCWOs suffered no prejudice due to the absence

  of ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ recommendations for PC in their ACRs, as

  such endorsements were excluded from the MDS placed before the

  Board. In any event, an analysis of 590 ACRs pertaining to 53

  Appellant-SSCWOs revealed that 1,640 endorsements (90.75%)

  recommended      PC,     while   1,797   endorsements     (98.08%)

  recommended extension. Only 79 endorsements were negative,

  while 123 were marked ‘NA’.

Page 17 of 60 vi. An analysis of box grading obtained by the Appellant-SSCWOs on

   a scale of 1 to 9 indicated that 11.71% of the box grading earned

   was outstanding (9), while 87.21% of the box grading was above

   average (8). The balance of 1.07% was (7). Even those Appellants

   who earned ‘7’ as their box grading in some ACRs had been granted

   box gradings of ‘8’ and ‘9’ in most others. Since the substantial

   majority of the box grading earned by the Appellants was

   ‘outstanding’ and ‘above average,’ the ACRs could not be stated to

   have been casually initiated and without due diligence by the

   various assessing officers.

vii. Under Paragraph 3(d) of the policy dated 24.02.2012, 10 marks

   were assigned for performance on courses, calculated as the

   average of scores obtained. Accordingly, the number or nature of

   courses completed did not impact the overall score. In that respect,

   the Appellants had completed a total of 158 courses, wherein only

   17.72% obtained ‘A’ grading, with the majority obtaining ‘B’

   (51.25%) and ‘C’ (26.58%) gradings.

viii. The requirement of being ‘Adequately Exercised’ through criteria

   appointments was not mandatory for PC consideration, but only

   for promotion by the No. 3 Selection Board to the select rank of

   Colonel.   The    Appellants   would   become   eligible    for   such

   consideration only in 2027 or 2028 and would, by then, have held

   the   requisite   appointments.   Thus,   the   Appellant-SSCWOs’

   contention that criteria appointments would have resulted in Page 18 of 60 better evaluations was misplaced, as the No. 5 Selection Board

        assessed performance in the appointment held, not the nature of

        the appointment itself.

ix. With the promulgation of the policy dated 26.09.2008; the

        pronouncement of the High Court’s judgement dated 12.03.2010;

        and the decision of this Court in [Babita Puniya](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159839005/) (supra), all

        SSCWOs     became    eligible   for   consideration   for   PC.   Thus,

        consideration for PC was no longer exclusively male, and it was

        expected that all SSCOs would be considered as per their batch

        strengths for 250 vacancies per year.

4.28. It is against this backdrop that the instant appeals have been instituted.

It may be noted here that from 20.08.2024 onwards, this Court has

  passed multiple interlocutory orders, the most important being the order

  dated 09.05.2025, which was further clarified on 19.05.2025, directing

  that all the officers presently in service, whose matters were pending

  before this Court, the High Court, or the AFT, including Lt. Col. Geeta

  Sharma, would not be released from service.

B. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. Ms. V. Mohana, Ms. Rekha Palli, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, and Mr.

   Abhinav Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel; Ms. Pooja Dhar, learned

   Advocate-on-Record; and Mr. Sudhanshu S. Pandey, learned Counsel,

   appearing on behalf of the Appellants, vociferously assailed the decisions

   of the AFT and advanced the following submissions: Page 19 of 60

(a) The ACRs play a pivotal role in the evaluation of a candidate for PC,

as they account for 75 marks out of a total of 100 marks, rendering

them determinative of an officer’s comparative merit. The Army

follows a relative grading system based on a bell-curve, wherein the

highest numerical grading of 9 (outstanding) is reserved for a small

fraction of officers. Consequently, such a system of grading reflects

the assessees’ position amongst their peers. Since the Appellant-
SSCWOs were commissioned between September 2010 and March

  2012, the cut-off dates for the ACRs were between 2019 and 2020,

  i.e., prior to the pronouncement of [Babita Puniya](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159839005/) (supra). This

  indicates that all their ACRs were graded during the period when

  women, as a whole, were considered ineligible for PC as a matter of

  policy. Owing to this entrenched idea that there was limited career

  progression for women officers, the ACRs were graded casually, with

  the assumption that they would have little to no bearing on long-

  term career prospects. In turn, this led to routine, middling gradings

  for   SSCWOs,      while   higher   grades   were   disproportionately

  concentrated amongst the male officers, who were in the running

  for PC. This phenomenon is judicially acknowledged in Lt. Col. [Nitisha](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8571728/) (supra).

(b) The letter dated 23.10.2020, issued by the MS Branch well after the

  decision in [Babita Puniya](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159839005/) (supra) was pronounced, instructing all

  IOs and ROs to exercise care while filling the ACRs of SSCWOs

  tacitly acknowledges that several of them were still incorrectly Page 20 of 60 endorsing ‘NA’ in the column pertaining to recommendation for PC.

Since most of the Appellants fell short of the respective cadre-wise

  cut-offs by a narrow margin of one or two marks, a fair appraisal of

  their service owing to their newfound eligibility for PC would likely

  have altered the outcome in their favour.

(c) From the 8th year of service, SSCOs are ordinarily detailed for

  criteria appointments in order to be classified as ‘Adequately

  Exercised’ for consideration by the No. 3 Selection Board for

  promotion to the select rank of Colonel. Such appointments entail

  higher responsibility, such as serving as an Officer Commanding or

  Company Commander in a certain project. Accordingly, the ACRs

  rendered during the tenure of such appointments are categorized as

  ‘criteria reports.’ Though criteria appointments are not assigned a

  distinct numerical weightage, they significantly influence the value

  judgement component of the assessment. However, since SSCWOs

  were not envisaged as future PC officers, the Appellant-SSCWOs

  were routinely denied such postings. Even in the few instances

  where the Appellant-SSCWOs were deployed in sensitive operational

  or counter-insurgency areas, the same was not reflected in their

  ACRs. Thus, the exclusion from holding criteria appointments and

  the omission to state such postings when held, in their ACRs,

  depressed their overall merit position.

(d) In the same vein, the Appellant-SSCWOs, being ineligible for PC

  prior to 17.02.2020, were never detailed systematically for the same, Page 21 of 60 especially during the relevant time for the Junior Command Course.

In contrast, their male counterparts were detailed for this course

  after their 6th year of service. Furthermore, while certain courses

  were not open to women officers at the relevant time in their careers,

  they were also not incentivised to partake in and complete other

  optional courses. Although performance in such courses attracts

  only 10 marks in the overall assessment and the score is arrived at

  by averaging the scores in all the courses completed, exposure to

  certain courses and the performance therein materially influences

  the ‘value judgement’. Thus, this differential access to career-

  advancing    opportunities    further   skewed     the   comparative

  assessment against the SSCWOs.

(e) The policy dated 15.01.1991, capping the number of vacancies at

  250 per year, has historically been breached on multiple occasions

  and has never been treated as an inflexible norm. This ceiling was

  breached in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007,

  resulting in more than 250 SSCOs being granted PC for each year.

  This Court, in Lt. Col. [Nitisha](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8571728/) (supra), itself noted that the policy

  circular dated 15.01.1991 was “not applied as a rigid norm.” Instead

  of being viewed as sacrosanct, this cap on vacancies was interpreted

  more as a guideline, which could be departed from as and when

  deemed necessary. Though cadre management and the release of

  additional vacancies remain a matter of policy, such discretion Page 22 of 60 cannot be exercised arbitrarily in a manner that perpetuates

  discrimination.

(f) The cap on vacancies is outdated as it was premised on a strictly

  all-male induction model. Owing to this, a thumping majority of the

  male SSCOs who opted for PC were subsequently granted PC at the

  time of consideration for the same. This cap proved adequate to

  accommodate the optees even after women officers in JAG and AEC

  cadres were considered eligible for the grant of PC, since the

  strength of women officers in the two cadres was very low. In

  comparison, when the Army started considering male and female

  officers together for PC, the proportion of male SSCOs granted PC

  varied between 42% and 75%, whereas the proportion of SSCWOs

  granted PC varied only between 30% and 60%. The consistent gap

  of approximately 10 percentage points in satisfaction levels between

  male and female officers across multiple Boards warrants a

  recalibration of the annual number of vacancies for PC.

(g) The Respondents’ reliance on the A. V. Singh Committee Report’s

  recommendation that a ratio of 1:1.1 be maintained between PC

  officers and SSCOs was unsustainable, as those recommendations

  had never been fully implemented by the Respondents. Such

  recommendations were being invoked selectively to insulate cadre

  management decisions from judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, the

  reliance on the A. V. Singh Committee Report was undermined by

  the Respondents themselves as they promulgated a policy dated Page 23 of 60 25.01.2018 to re-employ retired PC officers of the rank of Brigadier

  or below, who were not above the age of 55 years, for a period of 2

  years at a time, extendable on recommendation. This was statedly

  done to make up for existing deficiencies in the officer cadre, as also

  noted by this Court in [Babita Puniya](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159839005/) (supra). Owing to this policy,

  over 1,800 male officers had been re-employed. While retired PC

  officers were being re-employed, trained and experienced SSCWOs

  were being released from service. Any deficiency in personnel could

  have easily been overcome by granting PC to the SSCWOs at the

  relevant time.

(h) The Appellants, both men and women officers, are ad idem on the

  claim of incorrect calculation of vacancies for the courses of

  SSCWOs-4, SSC-90, SSCWOs-5, and SSC-91. As per the policy

  dated 15.01.1991 and the File Noting dated 22.01.1991, 250

  vacancies were to be allotted to the courses commissioned in a

  single calendar year, based on their inter se batch strength.

  However, the Respondents computed vacancies based on the batch

  strength of the courses considered for PC in a given year, effectively

  converting a batch-based calculation into a Board-centric one. By

  virtue of this altered methodology, SSCWOs-4 and SSC-90,

  commissioned in September 2010, were allotted 131 vacancies.

  However, the course of officers commissioned in March 2010 was

  allotted 77 vacancies, as noticed by this Court in Lt. Col. [Nitisha](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8571728/) (supra). Since the vacancies were to be apportioned between the Page 24 of 60 courses commissioned in the same calendar year, the correct

  number of vacancies available to the Appellants commissioned in

  September 2010 was (250 – 77), i.e. 173 vacancies. Owing to this

  miscalculation, 42 vacancies for the officers commissioned in

  September 2010 had been withheld.

(i) The Appellant-male SSCOs, at the time of being commissioned, had

  anticipated consideration for PC against a vacancy pool exclusively

  meant for male officers. Thus, the sudden expansion of the pool of

  competition eroded their legitimate expectation of being granted PC.

(j) The situation of the Appellant-SSCWOs is materially

  indistinguishable from the SSCWOs who approached this Court in

  Lt. Col. [Nitisha](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8571728/) (supra). Much like the officers in Lt. Col. [Nitisha](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8571728/) (supra), the instant Appellants could not have been made to

  compete with their male counterparts for PC, as the playing field

  was never equal, owing to casual grading of their ACRs and their

  lack of consideration for criteria appointments. Additionally, since

  the Union failed to undertake any meaningful course-correction to

  review the method of evaluation of ACRs and the cut-offs for future

  batches, as directed in Lt. Col. [Nitisha](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8571728/) (supra), the instant

  Appellants have been left in the lurch and are entitled to similar

  relief as granted in Lt. Col. [Nitisha](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8571728/) (supra).

(k) The SSCOs, both male and female, have dedicated the prime of their

  lives to serving in the Army. They have nevertheless been released Page 25 of 60 from service with no pension and few benefits. In contrast, PC

       officers are granted a pension on completion of 20 years of service.

       Similarly, the Jawans in the Army are entitled to pension after

       completion of 15 years’ service. Such differentiation places the

       SSCOs at a highly disadvantaged position for no justifiable reason.

(l) A juxtaposition has arisen whereby some of the Appellants have

       been released from service during the pendency of the instant

       appeals, despite their batchmates and juniors being allowed to

       continue in service or being permitted to rejoin shortly after being

       released from service.

1. Per contra, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor-General of

   India, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, vehemently defended the

   Impugned Judgements and refuted the allegations of unfair evaluation

   with the aid of the following submissions:

(a) The entire assessment in the No. 5 Selection Board is anonymized

by redacting the names of the officers, their unique identification

numbers, and all other data that could reveal their identities. The

only information available to the members of the Selection Board in

the MDS consists of the course profile, gradings, honours and

awards, and details of appointments. Since a large number of

Appellant-SSCWOs had been endorsed with positive

recommendations for PC, it could not be said that the Appellants

were placed at a disadvantage by any means. In any event, the Page 26 of 60 details of such recommendations were removed from the MDS

prepared for the members of the No. 5 Selection Board.
Consequently, no discernible prejudice was caused to the

  Appellant-SSCWOs.

(b) There are no separate marks allotted for criteria appointments in

  the assessment for consideration for PC, indicating that it is not a

  mandatory criterion for the grant of PC and, as such, has no bearing

  on the overall scores. Furthermore, since criteria appointments are

  necessitated only when being considered for promotion by the No. 3

  Selection Board to the first select rank of Colonel, such officers

  would be granted the required criteria appointments in due course

  of time.

(c) The 10 marks assigned for performance in the courses as per the

  policy dated 24.02.2012 are to be computed by simply averaging the

  scores received in all the completed courses. Thus, the number or

  nature of the courses completed has no bearing on the overall score

  or merit position.

(d) The decision to cap the total number of vacancies for PC in a given

  year at 250 is purely a cadre management issue, left to the

  discretion of the Army to decide as per the organisational need to

  maintain operational efficiency. Since the Armed Forces provide

  vital capabilities for defence, crisis response, deterrence, and power

  projection as and when required, they play an indispensable role in Page 27 of 60 ensuring the safety, stability, and prosperity of the nation in an

  increasingly complex geopolitical landscape. Thus, sustaining and

  modernizing the Armed Forces remains a paramount priority for

  safeguarding national interests and promoting global security.

(e) The cap on vacancies, as explicated in the policy circular dated

  15.01.1991, was not contemplated to apply only to male SSCOs

  because once women officers in JAG and AEC cadres became

  eligible for the grant of PC, the existing cap on vacancies was

  maintained. The grant of PC to women officers of those two cadres

  thus fell within the specified cap, emphasizing the gender-neutrality

  of the policy.

(f) The cap on vacancies had been breached between 1999 and 2008

  for two reasons: (i) the older, now extinct policies led to some officers

  being considered for PC twice; and (ii) the operational requirements

  and exigencies of service at the time of the Kargil War and during

  Operation Parakram. Past breaches of the ceiling on vacancies were

  exceptional responses to policy transitions or national security

  urgencies, none of which apply to the Appellants’ cases. Regardless,

  the cap of 250 vacancies had not been breached since 2008,

  indicating the Respondents’ intention to abide by it strictly.

(g) As per the recommendations of the A. V. Singh Committee Report,

  the Army was trying to achieve the optimum officer ratio of 1:1.1

  between the regular and the support cadres. This ratio was derived Page 28 of 60 to lower the overall age profile of officers, especially those in junior

  and middle leadership levels, who are closely engaged in combat and

  are posted in harsh operational environments. This Report also

  noted that a higher age profile impinges on the performance of

  officers as the risk-taking capability diminishes, physical fitness

  standards required for high altitude and glaciated terrain become

  difficult to maintain, and alertness at night is adversely affected.

  Maintaining the ideal ratio of 1:1.1 is necessary to sustain the

  pyramidal structure of the Army, wherein it requires a much larger

  base of junior officers to be commanded by a much narrower pool

  of regular officers. The ceiling on vacancies acts as the key to achieve

  this level of structural efficiency, and accordingly, since June 2022,

  the Competent Authority declined to release additional vacancies for

  the grant of PC.

(h) In a similar vein, the shortfall of officers in the Army is largely

  between the ranks of Lieutenant to Lt. Colonel, i.e. the non-select

  ranks, and currently, there is a negligible deficiency in the select

  ranks. Increasing the cap on vacancies or granting PC to more

  officers would compromise the optimum officer ratio, thus creating

  a ‘bulge’ in the pyramid. This bulge would reduce the number of PC

  slots available to junior officers, while simultaneously expanding the

  competitive pool for promotion to the higher select ranks. This

  would lead to a devastating situation, resulting in huge non-

  employment, cadre stagnation, and poor cadre aspirations, Page 29 of 60 ultimately impacting the career progression of future batches and

  the senior officers alike.

(i) Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the No. 5 Selection Board for the

  course commissioned in September 2010 could not be held in May-

  June 2020, as per the original schedule. Accordingly, a provisional

  extension was granted to the SSCOs of this course till March 2021.

  In December 2020, the regular No. 5 Selection Board was held,

  which considered two batches, i.e., the September 2010 courses and

  the March 2011 courses, for the grant of PC, based on the

  apportioned vacancies. In compliance with [Babita Puniya](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159839005/) (supra),

  male and female officers in those batches were considered jointly.

  All future No. 5 Selection Boards have been conducted in the same

  manner to the extent of considering men and women officers jointly.

  Thus, the instant Appellants have been duly considered as per the

  existing policies and have not been granted PC simply due to their

  lower overall comparative merit.

(j) Two regular No. 5 Selection Boards are conducted in a year, i.e. in

  May/June and November/December of the calendar year. The

  regular No. 5 Selection Board for the SSCO course passing out in

  August or September of any year is scheduled in May or June of the

  same year, and the Board for the course passing out in March is

  conducted in November or December of the preceding year. While

  implementing the policy circular dated 15.01.1991, vacancies were

  calculated by apportioning the same between the SSCOs of the Page 30 of 60 August 1986 (SSC-42) and March 1987 (SSC-43) batches, as both

  had entered their fifth year of service and were due for consideration

  for PC. Since then, the Respondents have followed the policy circular

  strictly and have been considering the batch of August/September

  of a given year with the batch of March of the subsequent year for

  the No. 5 Selection Boards being held in a single calendar year. In

  2019, two No. 5 Selection Boards were conducted, i.e. in June and

  November for the courses that were commissioned in September

  2009 and March 2010, respectively. Thus, it was clear that the

  vacancies available to the course commissioned in March 2010 had

  been calculated at the beginning of 2019, by apportioning them with

  the course commissioned in September 2009. By this reasoning, the

  Appellants’ contention that the September 2010 course was entitled

  to 173 vacancies, as only 77 vacancies had been granted to the

  March 2010 course, is entirely misconceived.

(k) The officers who were granted relief by this Court in Babita Puniya (supra) and Lt. Col. Nitisha (supra) were uniquely placed and

  formed a category distinct from the instant Appellants, as their male

  counterparts had already been considered for PC. In contrast, the

  instant Appellant-SSCWOs became eligible for consideration for PC

  at the same time as their male counterparts, through the regular

  course of service and hence, they were considered jointly vide a

  common merit list. Once they were eligible for consideration, they Page 31 of 60 became subject to overall comparative merit amongst their fellow

         optees, as envisioned in multiple policy letters.

(l) Finally, after SSCOs are released from service, they are granted

         terminal   gratuity,   group   insurance   maturity   amount,    leave

         encashment, ex-servicemen status, terminal leave, ECHS health

         benefits, canteen facilities, age relaxation of 5 years for direct

         enrolment in Group A and B posts, and resettlement courses at

         prestigious institutions. Thus, the service provided by the SSCOs is

         adequately recognised and duly appreciated through various post-

         release benefits.

C. ISSUES

1. Against the backdrop of the facts set out above, and upon close scrutiny
   

   of the rival positions taken by the parties, we find that the following

   issues crystallise for determination in this set of appeals:

i. Whether the ACRs of the Appellant-SSCWOs were graded casually

without adjudging their suitability for career progression? If so, has

such grading adversely affected their overall comparative merit?

ii. Whether the disparate treatment of Appellant-SSCWOs in respect of

criteria appointments and additional/optional courses adversely

impacted their overall scores in the No. 5 Selection Board?

iii. Whether the cap on vacancies has led to ‘indirect discrimination’

against SSCWOs, and whether such vacancies have been calculated

incorrectly?

Page 32 of 60 iv. Whether the Appellant-male SSCOs were right to have a legitimate

expectation to be considered only against other male officers for the

grant of PC?

D. ANALYSIS

D.1 Issue No. 1: Alleged Casual Grading of the ACRs of the Appellant-
SSCWOs and the Effect Thereof
8. At the outset, and before addressing the merits of the challenge, it is

  necessary to briefly outline the nature and method of assessment of

  ACRs in the Army. As per the Army Order 45/2001, an ACR aims to

  provide    an   objective   assessment      of   an   officer’s   competence,

  employability, and potential as observed during the period covered by the

  report, primarily for organizational requirements. The ACRs are filled in

  by the IO, the RO, and the Senior Reporting Officer so as to ensure a

  comprehensive evaluation of the officer’s profile.

1. Each ACR comprises several graded components, in addition to a distinct

   section for ‘Box Grading’ as well as ‘Recommendation for PC or

   Extension.’ Grading in the various components, including box grading,

   is awarded on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 denoting outstanding. In essence,

   box grading represents the assessing officer’s holistic evaluation of the

   ratee’s profile, duly accompanied by supporting reasons in the pen

   picture. The recommendation for PC or extension, however, is confined

   to a binary endorsement of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

2. In the race for consideration for PC, ACRs carry determinative weight,

   accounting for 75 out of the total 100 marks. As stipulated in the policy Page 33 of 60 dated 24.02.2012, marks under this head are computed by averaging the

   figurative assessments recorded by the ROs across all ACRs, both

   annually and cumulatively, and converting the aggregate score into a

   proportion of 75 marks. Negative recommendations for PC further affect

   the overall score, as it results in the deduction of two marks. In contrast,

   a positive recommendation has no effect on the total score. However, if

   any RO has endorsed a candidate with ‘NA’ in the column for

   recommendation for PC, the same will be indicated in the MDS by code

   ‘C’. Regardless, the column of ‘Recommendation for PC/Extension’ has

   been removed entirely from the MDS, so the members of the No. 5

   Selection Board do not have this information available to them at the

   time of evaluating the ratees and assigning marks for value judgement.

3. It is pertinent to note at this stage that grading in ACRs follows a bell-

   curve distribution. This means that only a limited number of 9’s can be

   handed out, as not all officers in the Army can be marked as

   ‘outstanding’ for the purpose of assessment. Consequently, the bulk of

   the officers under consideration receive a score of 7 or 8.

4. Against this institutional backdrop, it will be easier to understand the

   parties’ opposing contentions. The Appellant-SSCWOs contend that

   during their entire 10-year stint in the Army, women in cadres other than

   JAG and AEC were ineligible for PC. Consequently, their ACRs were

   written with the foreknowledge that they would serve only for a limited

   tenure and would not be considered for substantive career progression.

   Since they had no scope for career progression, the assessing officers Page 34 of 60 graded their ACRs casually and gave them lower scores. It is alleged that

   this assumption resulted in a casual approach towards assessment, with

   higher grades being informally reserved for male SSCOs who were eligible

   for PC and for whom such grades would materially affect their future

   prospects. Resultantly, women officers were routinely assigned average

   or middling scores, as a lower score would not impede their career

   progression in the Army in any shape or form. The Appellants further

   pointed out that even after women officers became eligible for

   consideration for PC on 17.02.2020, assessing officers continued to

   erroneously record ‘NA’ in the column relating to recommendation for PC.

5. On the other hand, the Respondents contended that the entire process

   of assessment in the No. 5 Selection Board was anonymised and that the

   members of the No. 5 Selection Board were not provided with any details

   about the candidates that would help identify them. As a consequence,

   it could not be asserted that women officers were treated unfairly merely

   owing to their gender. Furthermore, the column of recommendations for

   PC was eliminated entirely from the MDS before presenting it to the

   members of the Board. They could not thus be prejudiced against those

   who had received negative endorsements or no endorsements for PC.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, we are constrained to observe

   that the Respondents’ submissions concerning the anonymization of the

   identifying data and the removal of the column of ‘Recommendation for

   PC’ do not deal with the substance of the issue at hand and, as such, do

   not come to their aid in any manner.

Page 35 of 60

1. We say so for the reason that though the members of the No. 5 Selection

   Board, equipped with the MDS to assign marks in the value judgement

   section, may not be aware of the identities of the officers before them, the

   various assessing officers who filled the ACRs each year were well aware

   of whom they were evaluating. It is at this foundational stage that

   differential treatment takes root between those perceived to have a future

   in the Army and those regarded as serving only a transient role.

2. All ACRs relied upon for consideration of PC were authored prior to

   17.02.2020, i.e. the date of pronouncement of Babita Puniya (supra),

   when SSCWOs outside JAG and AEC cadres were presumed to be

   ineligible for PC. At that time, it was a matter of policy that such officers

   would serve a maximum of fourteen years. Assessing officers were thus

   conscious that meaningful career progression was effectively unavailable

   to these women, particularly when compared to their male counterparts,

   for whom PC opened the pathway to higher ranks and prolonged service.

3. In such a context, the practice of assigning lower or average grades to

   women officers seems to have become normalised, as there was no real

   consequence or benefit to receiving higher grades. Under a bell-curve

   system, where only a few officers could receive top grades, those grades

   were inevitably reserved for officers whose future progression depended

   upon them. This institutional mindset, earlier recognised by this Court

   in Lt. Col. Nitisha (supra), fundamentally shaped the manner in which

   the ACRs of SSCWOs were written. Having never been evaluated for

   suitability for long-term career progression, since none existed, their Page 36 of 60 ACRs could not realistically reflect such potential or be held to be

   indicative of such capacity.

4. The cumulative consequence was a systemic pattern in which women

   officers outside the JAG and AEC cadres consistently received lower

   gradings, not due to lack of merit, but due to the absence of any perceived

   career horizon. This phenomenon has come back to haunt those very

   SSCWOs as they were subsequently and quite abruptly placed in a

   competition for PC with their male counterparts, who did not undergo

   such hindrances in grading over the course of their decade-long service.

   It is, therefore, not surprising to us that the differential treatment meted

   out to officers ‘with a future’ in the Army and those deemed to be without

   one has resulted in an unequal playing field.

5. When considered together at the relevant time for the grant of PC, years

   of middling grades in ACRs have taken a toll on the Appellant-SSCWOs’

   positions in the overall list of comparative merit. Given that ACRs

   account for 75% of the total marks, the long-term effects of such grading

   practices cannot be neutralised by procedural safeguards introduced at

   the final stage of evaluation. Attempting to remedy such a structural

   disadvantage embedded in years of service assessments by mere

   anonymisation of the MDS and removal of the recommendation column

   is akin to adjusting the lens of a camera to alter the quality of an image

   captured much earlier. The damage had been done years before the No.

   5 Selection Board was even convened.

Page 37 of 60

1. In light of this, we are unable to accept the contentions advanced by the

   Respondents in this regard. We observe that the Appellant-SSCWOs’

   ineligibility for substantive career progression at the time of writing the

   ACRs has adversely impacted the grading of such ACRs as well as their

   overall comparative merit when being considered for PC in the regular

   No. 5 Selection Board alongside their male counterparts. Thus, we

   cannot hope to agree with the view taken by the AFT in the Impugned

   Judgements that the ACRs of the Appellant-SSCWOs were graded with

   due diligence and fairness to determine their suitability for PC.

D.2 Issue No. 2: Alleged Unfair Assessment of SSCWOs due to Disparity

in Appointments and Courses

1. Apart from the differential treatment meted out to them in grading of

   their ACRs, the Appellant-SSCWOs contend that systemic disparity in

   access to appointments and career-enhancing courses compounded the

   disadvantage they faced during consideration for PC. It is asserted that

   SSCWOs were not granted the opportunity to be ‘Adequately Exercised’

   as compared to the male SSCOs. Further, even in cases where the

   appointment would ordinarily be a criteria appointment, it is not

   reflected accurately in the ACRs or the MDS. Similarly, the SSCWOs

   allege that they were neither incentivised nor recommended for various

   career-enhancing courses during their service. The result, according to

   the Appellant-SSCWOs, was a diminished service profile when assessed

   by the No. 5 Selection Board, adversely affecting their inter se merit. Page 38 of 60

2. Significantly, neither the Army nor the AFT have rebutted the factual

   existence of such a disparity. While individual experiences may vary, the

   material placed on record establishes a consistent pattern of limited

   access to criteria appointments and career-enhancing courses for

   SSCWOs. One illustration provided by the Appellants is that of the

   Junior Command Course, from which SSCWOs were excluded on the

   premise that they were ineligible for PC, while male SSCOs were

   permitted to attend it after completing six years of service.

3. The impact of such like discrepancy on the assessment of the Appellant-

   SSCWOs in the No. 5 Selection Board has, instead, been the focus of the

   Respondents’ submissions. They contend that these purported

   differences in the service progression of male and female officers did not

   affect the assessment of merit by the No. 5 Selection Board. Criteria

   appointments, they maintain, are not prerequisites for consideration by

   the Board and are not assigned any specific value for marking.

   Additionally, while the performance on the courses is assigned 10 marks

   under the policy dated 24.02.2012, the said score is obtained by

   averaging the scores received in the specific courses undertaken by the

   officer. By this logic, there is no impact of the officer having undergone a

   greater or lesser number of courses, a position also accepted by the AFT

   in the Impugned Judgements.

4. When it comes to the computerised evaluation, we have already held that

   the Appellant-SSCWOs were burdened with casually graded ACRs,

   accounting for 75 marks. The Appellant-SSCWOs, through the instant Page 39 of 60 contention, have also attempted to establish that the 10 marks to be

   determined by the performance on the courses undergone by an officer

   were negatively affected due to inadequate opportunities to undergo

   important courses and the lack of incentive to do exceedingly well in the

   courses available to them.

5. In our considered opinion, this line of argument merits rejection for the

   reason that, as per Paragraph 3(d) of the policy dated 24.02.2012, the

   marks awarded for ‘Courses’ are purely based on the average of the

   marks obtained in each course. There is no measure of the number of

   courses undertaken by a particular officer, nor are the qualitative

   differences in the courses taken into account. That being the case, the

   assertion that discrimination in assignment for courses has affected the

   10 marks awarded for ‘Courses’ cannot be accepted. Similarly, no other

   aspect of the computerised evaluation is affected by the disparity in the

   number and nature of appointments, as no numerical value is assigned

   to them.

6. There is, however, another area of marking where such nuances, like the

   number and qualitative aspects of courses and appointments, are given

   weightage: the value judgement of 5 marks, which involves a holistic and

   subjective assessment by the members of the No. 5 Selection Board.

7. Paragraph 2 of the policy dated 24.02.2012 delineates what shall be

   considered by the Selection Board while awarding the marks for value

   judgement. For reference, it is reproduced hereinbelow: Page 40 of 60

“2. The members of the Selection Board will scrutinize the MDS
to take into account liberal/strict reporting, inconsistency
in performance, nature and seriousness of disciplinary
award, technical assessment, performance on courses,
strong/weak points reflected in the pen-picture and
appointments held by the officer, and award the Value
Judgement marks out of 5. They will also award the following
gradings besides awarding Value Judgement:-
(a) Recommended for Permanent Commission - ‘B’
(b) Recommended for Extension only - ‘BE’
(c) Rejected for Permanent Commission and - ‘Z’
Extension
(d) Withdraw (for want of sufficient material/ - ‘W'
administrative reasons)
(e) Deferred (in case the members feel that - ‘D’
the fitness or otherwise of the officer can
only be decided after observing the
performance of the officer further)”
[Sic] [Emphasis supplied]
28. What is readily apparent from the above stipulation is that the Selection

Board, while awarding the marks for value judgement, is obligated to

undertake a subjective assessment of the entire service profile of the

officer under consideration. This is in contrast to the mechanical

determination of 95 marks from the computerised evaluation.

1. We can view the entire process as a race, where all participants are made

to compete on the same track, but only a few are provided access to

professional training facilities beforehand. When such runners are

judged together solely on their final timings, the disparity embedded in

the preparation itself is rendered invisible, though its effects are

decisively felt. As has been expressly provided in Paragraph 2 of the

policy dated 24.02.2012, the subjective evaluation involves consideration

of the courses undertaken and the appointments served by the officer. Page 41 of 60
In this context, reduced exposure to courses and exclusion from criteria

appointments will inevitably influence the Board’s assessment. Since the

Board evaluates officers based solely on the anonymised MDS, any

discrepancies in recorded appointments or course exposure are carried

forward into the value judgment process.

1. In the case of the immediate seniors of the instant Appellants, this Court

   returned a similar finding in Lt. Col. Nitisha (supra), recording that the

   discrepancy in offering additional courses to male and female SSCOs,

   arising from systemic issues related to the non-grant of PC to SSCWOs,

   would have caused a reduction in the marks granted upon value

   judgement by the Special No. 5 Selection Board.

2. In the absence of any rebuttal from the Respondents, and given the

   subjective nature of the evaluation, in which two of the express criteria

   have been marred by inequality in opportunity, we have no hesitation in

   concluding that the differential treatment meted out to the SSCWOs has

   translated into reduced marks under the value judgment component of

   the assessment.

3. At this stage, one may question whether such a discrepancy would

   substantively affect the inter se merit list, especially when the value

   judgement accounts for only 5 out of 100 marks awarded in the No. 5

   Selection Board. The data supplied by the Respondents themselves,

   however, is sufficient to dispel this doubt.

Page 42 of 60

1. The Appellant-SSCWOs, who did not meet the merit-wise cut-offs in their

   respective assessments, can be seen to have lost out on the grant of PC

   by small margins. In some cases, the Appellants have scored less than

   0.5 marks below the cut-off marks applicable to them. In such

   circumstances, even a minor distortion in value judgement therefore

   becomes determinative of the outcome. Hence, it can be inferred that had

   the Appellant-SSCWOs not faced this kind of inequality in opportunity

   during the course of their service, the final result of the No. 5 Selection

   Board would undoubtedly have yielded better outcomes for the SSCWOs.

   That is more so when considered in light of the similar findings recorded

   by us in the preceding issue concerning the marks awarded for Overall

   Average Performance derived from the ACRs.

2. As a result, the finding of the AFT to the effect that the differential

   treatment of the SSCWOs on aspects of optional courses and criteria

   appointments had no impact on the results of the No. 5 Selection Boards

   is patently erroneous and untenable. The merit list, to this extent,

   reflects the consequences of unequal opportunity structures, thus

   fortifying the arguments proffered by the Appellant-SSCWOs.

D.3 Issue No. 3: The Cap on Vacancies and their Calculation

1. Having held that the Appellant-SSCWOs were subjected to structural

   disadvantages both in the grading of their ACRs and in access to career-

   enhancing opportunities, we now turn to the institutional constraint

   relied upon by the Respondents to justify the denial of relief, namely, the

   annual ceiling of 250 vacancies for the grant of PC and the manner in Page 43 of 60 which those vacancies were computed. This is the issue on which all the

   Appellants seem to join hands.

2. To properly appreciate and ascertain the validity of the Appellants’

   claims, we must comprehensively evaluate: (i) The sanctity of the annual

   cap of 250 vacancies for the grant of PC; and (ii) The correctness of the

   calculation of vacancies for the regular No. 5 Selection Board held in

   December 2020.

D.3.1 The sanctity of the annual cap of 250 vacancies for the grant

of PC

1. Before we proceed, we find it apposite to observe that this Court has not

   entertained a challenge to the very existence of a ceiling on the number

   of SSCOs who may be granted PC each year. Furthermore, we are also

   not inclined to evaluate the merits of the contention raised by the

   Appellants that there is a general need to increase the cap on vacancies

   from the current sanctioned number of 250. We believe that such a

   decision essentially falls within the policy domain, and it is better to leave

   it to the competent authority, which is most suited to assess the

   operational requirements of the Army, given that such an exercise

   requires a nuanced understanding of the ideal structure and

   composition of the Armed Forces, the consequential financial

   implications, etc. It is thus not appropriate at all for this Court to

   substitute the decision of policymakers with its own. Page 44 of 60

2. We are nevertheless conscious of this Court’s power and duty to judicially

   review such a policy within the framework of constitutional standards.

   Suffice it to say that in the instant appeals, the Appellants have, rather,

   only sought to strike at the suitability of the number, given that the

   intake of SSCOs in the Army has substantially increased over the years

   and the fact that the limit on vacancies has been breached several times

   before. This, however, as stated above, would entail significant policy

   analysis and thus, it may not be appropriate for this Court to undertake

   such an exercise in the instant proceedings. The limited question that

   arises for our consideration is whether, in the peculiar facts of the instant

   case, where the method of assessment itself has been found to be unfair,

   the ceiling of 250 vacancies can operate as an absolute bar to

   corrective relief?

3. The Respondents have, before the AFT as well as this Court, entrenched

   themselves in the position that, considering the ceiling on vacancies, no

   additional vacancies could be created to accommodate a larger number

   of SSCOs being granted PC. The reason assigned for this stance is that

   the maximum limit is essential for cadre management and to prevent an

   increase in the average age of the force. Essentially, the Respondents

   submit that the policy reasons behind the limit of 250 on vacancies for

   the grant of PC are so critical that the limit ought not to be breached

   even in the current conditions.

4. This submission, however, is not borne out by the Respondents’

   historical practice. The record placed before the AFT, particularly the Page 45 of 60 table extracted in Paragraph 111 of the Impugned Judgment dated

   03.07.2024, reveals that the ceiling of 250 vacancies has been repeatedly

   breached in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.

   As per the Respondents, apart from the supernumerary grant of PC

   through the Special No. 5 Selection Board in 2020, no subsequent batch

   of SSCOs has been granted PC beyond the limit of 250 vacancies. The

   Respondents have justified the ceiling being crossed in the above-

   mentioned years for two reasons: (i) exigencies arising out of the

   circumstances of the Kargil War and Operation Parakram; and (ii) the

   changes in policy regarding the consideration for PC, which necessitated

   transitional measures. For the latter, it is clarified that the SSCOs were

   originally to be considered for PC in their 5th year of service, but from

   2000-2001, they became eligible to be considered anew in their 8th year

   also. Subsequently, with another policy change in 2006, some of the

   SSCOs, who had previously not opted for consideration for PC, could

   choose to be considered for PC for the first time in their 10th year

   of service.

5. A closer examination of these instances discloses a particular pattern

   where, for some of the batches where the total number of officers who

   were granted PC has gone beyond the ceiling, originally only 250

   vacancies were filled during the first consideration in the 5th year of

   service of the officers. However, when they were reconsidered in their 8th

   year of service, additional vacancies on the basis of the total cadre

   strength were created to accommodate a larger number of SSCOs being Page 46 of 60 granted PC. A similar exercise appears to have been undertaken for the

   separate consideration in the 10th year of service as well.

6. It is, however, pertinent to note that, apart from the batches for which

   the limit of 250 vacancies has been breached, none of the batches has

   recorded that PC has been granted to an exact total of 250 SSCOs. In

   fact, the closest number of officers to be granted PC in a particular cycle

   was in the 2003-04 batches, 222 officers wherefrom were granted PC.

   What is, thus, revealed is that the Respondents have granted PC to more

   than 250 officers in the years in which the number of eligible optees for

   PC was greater than 250. While these vacancies may have been derived

   from the overall cadre strength, it is the Respondents’ own admission

   that each instance was accompanied by the requisite approvals from the

   Competent Authority in the MS Branch.

7. All these facts and circumstances reveal the Respondents’ concessionary

   conduct towards the 250-cap on the grant of PC. They have not presented

   a single instance between 1998 and 2019 where there were more than

   250 eligible SSCOs opting for the grant of PC, but only 250 were

   ultimately granted PC; rather, the Respondents have offered PC to a

   greater number of officers in each such batch. The Respondents,

   similarly, undertook to grant PC beyond the cap of 250 vacancies to the

   SSCWOs covered by Babita Puniya (supra).

8. The inescapable inference, therefore, is that the ceiling of 250 vacancies

   is neither sacrosanct nor immutable. As already observed by this Court Page 47 of 60 in Lt. Col. Nitisha (supra), it is amenable to relaxation where adherence

   to it would perpetuate constitutional inequality. The Respondents have

   time and again disregarded it on various grounds, including the

   directions previously issued by this Court in light of the discrimination

   faced by SSCWOs in their assessment for PC. In the instant case, where

   the Appellant-SSCWOs have been found to suffer the cumulative effects

   of an unfair evaluative regime, the invocation of the vacancy cap as a

   shield against remedial action would be unfair to sustain. Owing to this,

   the Respondents’ plea regarding the sanctity of the ceiling on vacancies

   falls flat, and the view taken by the AFT, maintaining such a cap in the

   instant set of appeals, therefore, has to be disapproved.

D.3.2 The incorrect calculation of vacancies

1. Ordinarily, if this Court reaches a finding that the maximum limit of 250

   vacancies is not an unbreakable norm and issues directions for

   disregarding it in the instant case, no occasion would arise for us to

   consider how such a limit should be applied. However, in light of the fact

   that the results of the No. 5 Selection Boards have been challenged by

   the male SSCOs and SSCWOs alike, we must address the subsidiary

   issue raised concerning the correctness of the computation of vacancies

   for the regular No. 5 Selection Board.

2. The Respondents, in their Counter Affidavit, have laid out the basis of

   apportionment of vacancies among different batches. The process is

   governed by the policy circular dated 15.01.1991, reproduced earlier,

   which clearly stipulates in Clause (a) that “a maximum of 250 SSCOs Page 48 of 60 will be granted Permanent Commission per year.” Further, Clause (c)

   of the same policy circular clarifies that “in case more than the specified

   number of officers make the grade from the batches considered in a

   year, the requisite number only, i.e. 250 will be granted Permanent

   Commission on competitive merit.”

3. This decision was complemented by a File Noting dated 22.01.1991, also

   reproduced earlier, guiding the implementation of the policy circular

   dated 15.01.1991. Paragraph 2(a) of this File Noting categorically states

   that “The grant of PRC to the total number of SSCOs in a batch will be

   based on the inter se batch strengths in one calendar year.” Although

   the policies governing the consideration of PC have changed over the

   years, the policy circular dated 15.01.1991 and the File Noting dated

   22.01.1991 have remained in force, unamended.

4. It is the Appellants’ submission that the expression ‘per year’ must be

   read as referring to the calendar year of commissioning, such that the

   March and September batches of the same calendar year are entitled to

   share the 250 vacancies, even if they are considered by different Selection

   Boards in different years.

5. Per contra, the Respondents contend that as per the policy circular dated

   15.01.1991, which has been implemented uniformly since its date of

   issue, the total number of vacancies is apportioned between the batches

   being considered for PC in a given year. Thus, the division of vacancies Page 49 of 60 is based on the year of conduct of the No. 5 Selection Board, not the year

   of commission.

6. It therefore emerges that the dispute between the parties essentially boils

   down to the interpretation of the policy circular dated 15.01.1991 and

   the complementary File Noting dated 22.01.1991.

7. This controversy need not detain us for long, since a bare perusal of the

   expression “will be granted Permanent Commission per year” in Clause

(a) of the policy circular dated 15.01.1991 indicates that the limit of 250

vacancies applies to all the SSCOs being granted PC in a particular year.

Furthermore, the term “calendar year” bears no mention in the policy

circular dated 15.01.1991, connecting it with the calendar year in which

the SSCOs are originally commissioned. Rather, the interpretation

forwarded by the Respondents is strengthened by the use of the phrase

“from the batches considered in a year” in Clause (c) of the same policy

letter. The deliberate and concurrent use of these phrases leaves no room

for doubt in our minds that the cap on vacancies is supposed to be

shared by the two different batches of SSCOs who are considered and

granted PC by the No. 5 Selection Board convened within the same

calendar year.

1. With regard to the File Noting dated 22.01.1991, it only serves as a

   clarificatory document for the policy circular dated 15.01.1991,

   providing the manner of proportional division of the vacancies among the

   batches and barring the roll-over of unfilled vacancies. The Appellants Page 50 of 60 have heavily relied on the noting, especially Paragraph 2(a) therein,

   which stipulates, “The grant of PRC to the total No of SSCOs in a batch

   will be based on the Inter se batch strengths in one calendar year,”

   to contend that the entire scheme revolves around the courses which are

   commissioned in a particular calendar year.

2. This argument is recorded only to be negatived. The text of the File Noting

   does not point to an inter se comparison between the two courses

   commissioned in a particular calendar year. The expression ‘Inter se

   batch strengths in one calendar year’ is, on the contrary, silent on

   whether it connotes the courses being commissioned in one year or the

   courses/batches being considered for grant of PC in one year. As such,

   the phrase cannot be taken, by itself, to support either version. Moreover,

   it is trite law that a clarificatory document is only meant to supplement

   the original stipulation, not supplant it. When the intent of the policy

   circular dated 15.01.1991 lucidly emerges from its own text, a contrary

   meaning cannot be imposed on the policy based on an unqualified

   expression in the File Noting. Rather, the File Noting must be

   implemented in a manner which is commensurate with the express

   provisions of the policy circular dated 15.01.1991.

3. Owing to this, we must accept the Respondents’ submission that the

   policy circular dated 15.01.1991 dictates that all the batches of SSCOs

   who are considered for and granted PC in a particular calendar year shall

   be entitled to a total of 250 vacancies, divided among the batches in

   proportion to their respective strengths.

Page 51 of 60

1. As a natural corollary to their opinion, the Respondents have pointed out

   that the process for assessment and grant of PC culminates a few months

   prior to completion of the SSCOs’ initial tenure of 10 years. Thus, the

   two regular No. 5 Selection Boards convened in a year are for the batches

   passing out in September of that year and March of the following year.

2. There is no dispute that the above practice has been consistently followed

   since 1991, when the first batch of SSCOs became eligible for the grant

   of PC. The only exception to this arrangement arose in 2020, when the

   batches commissioned in September 2010 and March 2011 were

   considered together by a singular No. 5 Selection Board in December

   2020, solely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the conduct of the

   Special No. 5 Selection Board as per the directions issued in [Babita

   Puniya](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159839005/) (supra). To drive home this argument, the Respondents have

   also presented the internal documents of the Army, reflecting the

   computation of the vacancies available for each batch as per the system

   delineated above.

3. Given what we have held herein, it leads us to a definite conclusion that

   in the ordinary course of proceedings, 250 vacancies would be liable to

   be apportioned between the course commissioned in September of one

   year and the course commissioned in March of the following year. Since

   this apportionment of vacancies is in line with the provisions of the policy

   circular dated 15.01.1991 and the sustained standard practice of the

   Army, we find no merit in the Appellants’ claim that the vacancies

   available for their batches were computed incorrectly or arbitrarily. To Page 52 of 60 this extent, we find ourselves in agreement with the findings returned by

   the AFT.

D.4 Issue No. 4: The Purported Legitimate Expectations of the Appellant-

Male SSCOs

1. The final issue that needs determination flows naturally from the

   foregoing discussions. In some of the appeals before us, especially those

   agitated on behalf of the Appellant-male SSCOs, it has been asserted that

   the male officers had a legitimate expectation that the PC vacancies for

   their batches would be filled only by male officers, with an exception

   carved out for the SSCWOs in JAG and AEC cadres. The Appellant-male

   SSCOs thus claim that their consideration alongside their female

   counterparts in all cadres/arms for the same number of vacancies was

   an arbitrary consequence of policy change, causing a substantial

   enlargement of the pool of SSCOs competing for the same number of

   PC slots.

2. At its core, this submission is merely a restatement of the argument that

   the vacancy cap ought to have been recalibrated once SSCWOs also

   became eligible for PC in all cadres. It seems that an attempt is being

   made to regurgitate the same submission by branding it as ‘legitimate

   expectation,’ so as to assert a legal right for abdication or revision of the

   policy circular dated 15.01.1991.

3. It is well settled that to seek legal remedy for the breach of a legitimate

   expectation, there must be: (i) a reasonable expectation arising from past Page 53 of 60 practice, express promise, or statutory policy of a public authority that a

   certain course of action would be followed; and (ii) arbitrariness, patent

   unfairness, or a violation of the principles of natural justice resulting

   from the denial of such expectation. Since the former, in itself, only

   creates a claim in equity, it is the latter which causes the Court to invoke

   its powers in favour of the aggrieved party. This Court can be inclined to

   offer some form of protection or redress to the Appellant-male SSCOs

   only when this twin test is met. The record, however, indicates that the

   first requirement itself is not fulfilled.

4. Only a short overview of the history of these appeals is needed for one to

   note that the High Court, in its judgement dated 12.03.2010, held

   SSCWOs to be entitled to be considered for PC in all branches/cadres in

   which they were being inducted. This judgement continued to remain in

   force, from the moment of its pronouncement, despite it being challenged

   before this Court in Babita Puniya (supra). While admitting the

   appeal(s), this Court categorically declined to stay the effect of the High

   Court’s judgement vide its order dated 02.09.2011. Considering that all

   the Appellants before us were commissioned as SSCOs in September

   2010 or thereafter, i.e. after the pronouncement of the High Court’s

   judgement dated 12.03.2010, the Appellant-male SSCOs cannot claim to

   be under any reasonable belief that SSCWOs would not be competing

   with them for the grant of PC. Moreover, there is no material to suggest

   that the Respondents ever represented that the vacancy cap would be

   expanded to offset the enlarged pool of eligible officers. In the absence of Page 54 of 60 such a representation, no enforceable expectation could arise in favour

   of the Appellant-male SSCOs.

5. Given the existence of an express direction in the judgement of the High

   Court and in the absence of any material to the contrary, we do not find

   any reason to believe that the Appellant-male officers had the legitimate

   expectation to be considered only against other male SSCOs for the grant

   of PC. For this reason alone, the argument of the Appellant-male SSCOs

   is liable to fail.

6. Having said so, we must also observe that no impetus must be given to

   any perceived expectation if it would run contrary to the Constitutional

   mandate. This aspect of the doctrine of ‘legitimate expectation’ has been

   succinctly laid out by a decision passed by a two-Judge Bench of this

   Court in K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India and others4 where

   one of us (Surya Kant, J., as he then was) held as follows:

“42. However, it is equally well-settled that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation cannot override an express provision of law
or the Constitution. It must be borne in mind that the
expectation must be legitimate, in the sense that it is not only
reasonable but also legally sustainable within the structure
of the governing statute or constitutional scheme. In the event
of any conflict between an expectation and the existing legal
framework, the expectation has to run hand in hand with the legal
intent and not against it. The doctrine of legitimate expectation
is not a rigid rule and must be conceded where a superseding
public interest or a statutory or constitutional bar exists.
Thus, while legitimate expectation may guide how discretionary
powers are exercised, it cannot be invoked to compel an authority to
act contrary to a binding legal or constitutional command.”
[Emphasis supplied]

4 (2025) 9 SCC 722.

Page 55 of 60
64. This Court, through a series of decisions, has worked to address the

unfair manner in which women officers have been treated due to certain

systematic traits in the functioning of the Armed Forces. The inclusion

of SSCWOs in the zone of consideration for PC is not a matter of

discretion, but of constitutional obligation. Any expectation to the

contrary is inherently illegitimate. The claim made by the Appellant-male

SSCOs that they ought not to be considered alongside SSCWOs is

therefore liable to be outrightly and decisively rejected.

E. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

1. Before concluding the judgement, it is necessary to recapitulate our

   findings on the various issues raised before us. They are summed up as

   follows:

(i) The ACRs of the Appellant-SSCWOs were authored with the

assumption that they would never undergo any substantive career

progression, owing to their ineligibility for PC for the initial ten

years of service. Since the avenue for PC was opened to them much

later, this presumption undermined the entire assessment of their

‘suitability’ for any career progression undertaken prior to that and

thus, adversely affected their overall merit in the consideration

for PC;

(ii) The inequalities in opportunities afforded to the Appellant-
SSCWOs to hold criteria appointments have adversely affected Page 56 of 60 their inter se merit, placing them at a disadvantage with their male

        counterparts;

(iii) Performance in career-enhancing courses influenced the marks

        awarded by the members of the No. 5 Selection Board in the value

        judgement component of the assessment. Since the Appellant-

        SSCWOs were never systematically detailed for such courses, their

        overall comparative merit at the time of consideration for PC was

        disproportionately impacted;

(iv) The ceiling on vacancies, fixed at 250 per year, is neither rigid nor

        sacrosanct   and   may    be   breached    when    the   method    of

        consideration for PC is unfair and unequal;

(v)     The Respondents have correctly calculated the vacancies by apportioning them between the batches being considered for PC

        within the same calendar year; and

(vi) The Appellant-male SSCOs could not reasonably expect that

        vacancies would remain exclusively male, particularly once the

        exclusion of SSCWOs from consideration for PC was held to be

        unconstitutional and impermissible by the High Court in its

        judgement dated 12.03.2010.

1. In view of the foregoing analysis and conclusions, we find that the denial

   of PC to SSCWOs was not merely the outcome of individual assessments,

   but the consequence of a systemic framework rooted in assumptions that

   entrenched disadvantages in career progression. Where the evaluative Page 57 of 60 framework applied to assess their performance under various

   parameters lacked the depth and rigour applied to their male

   counterparts, these assessments have inevitably influenced their service

   records, comparative merit, and career progression. Thus, we deem it

   appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution

   to grant such relief which is moulded towards doing complete justice

   between the parties.

2. In light of this, we allow the appeals preferred by the Appellant-SSCWOs

   and dismiss those filed by the Appellant-male SSCOs. Accordingly, we

   modify the directions issued in the Impugned Judgements of the AFT

   dated 03.07.2024 and 04.09.2024 to the following extent:

(i) The grant of PC to the SSCOs who have already been granted PC

by the No. 5 Selection Boards convened in 2020 and 2021 and by

the AFT vide the Impugned Judgements shall not be disturbed;

(ii) As a one-time measure, the Appellants-SSCWOs and the

Intervenor-SSCWOs in IAs for impleadment/intervention, who

have been released from service during the pendency of these

proceedings, whether before the AFT, before the High Court, before

this Court, or in the interregnum, shall be deemed to have

completed substantive qualifying service of 20 years and shall be

entitled to pension and all consequential benefits, except arrears

of pay, on the basis that they have completed such

minimum service;

Page 58 of 60

(iii) The pension shall be fixed on the basis of the date of completion of

the deemed service of 20 years, but arrears thereof, if any, shall be

paid to the SSCWOs only with effect from 01.01.2025. As a matter

of abundant caution, we clarify that this direction does not apply

to the Appellant-SSCWOs and Intervenor-SSCWOs who form part

of the JAG and AEC cadres, as they have been eligible for

consideration for PC since 2010;

(iv) All SSCWOs who are continuing in service by virtue of our orders

dated 09.05.2025 and 19.05.2025, and who have fulfilled the

minimum cut-off grade of 60% in the regular No. 5 Selection

Boards held in 2020 and 2021, shall be entitled to the grant of

permanent commission, subject to their meeting the medical

criteria prescribed in the respective General Instructions and on

receiving disciplinary and vigilance clearance. We reiterate that

this direction does not apply to the Appellant-SSCWOs and

Intervenor-SSCWOs who form part of the JAG and AEC cadres;

(v) The Appellant-SSCWOs and Intervenor-SSCWOs who have been

considered for PC by No. 5 Selection Boards convened after 2021

and are aggrieved by such results may pursue their remedies in

accordance with the law. If their challenges are already pending

before the AFT or the High Court, they may continue to pursue

such claims and may avail the remedy available in law, if aggrieved

by the outcome; and Page 59 of 60

(vi) As a follow-up to the direction issued in Paragraph 120(viii) of Lt.
Col. Nitisha (supra), the method of evaluation of ACRs and the

        cut-off must be reviewed for future batches, in order to examine

        the disproportionate impact on SSCWOs who became eligible for

        the grant of permanent commission in the subsequent years of

        their service.

1. Ordered accordingly.

2. Pending applications, if any, are also to be disposed of in the above terms.

............…….........CJI
(SURYA KANT)

                                                     ..............…….........J.
                                                           (UJJAL BHUYAN)

                                  ………………………..............…….........J.
                                  (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 24, 2026 Page 60 of 60