Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking direction to the respondents to fill up the 20 unfilled “Air Force (i) Flying” vacancies for which the Examination Notification dated 17-5-2023 (‘Examination Notification’) was notified, the Division Bench of C. Hari Shankar* and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., stated that the petitioner being in possession of a “fit to fly” certificate and having cleared all rounds of examinations, was eligible for appointment. The Court stated that it was not permissible for anyone to interpret or administer any stipulation, advertisement or notification in a manner which would be gender skewed. Thus, the Court stated that the respondents were not justified in keeping 20 vacancies unfilled and directed that the petitioner be appointed against one of the unfilled 20 Air Force (i) Flying vacancies relating to the Examination Notification.
Background:
On 17-5-2023, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued an Examination Notice for recruitment through the National Defence Academy (‘NDA’) and Naval Academy Examination, to various posts in Armed Forces. In the said examination notice, 92 vacancies were announced under “Air Force (i) Flying,” including 2 specifically reserved for female candidates. The petitioner appeared for the exam, and her name was included in the final merit list of 699 candidates issued by the Ministry of Defence on 2-4-2024.
While two female-reserved vacancies were filled, only 70 of the 90 unreserved vacancies were filled by male candidates, leaving 20 vacancies unfilled. The petitioner ranked 7th among the female candidates and was also found medically fit to fly, with a valid “Fit to Fly” certificate issued by the Appeal Medical Board on 11-3-2024. The petitioner aggrieved by the fact that, despite 20 of the 90 vacancies which were not earmarked for female candidates remaining vacant, she was not offered appointment, filed the present writ petition.Case Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the examination notice did not state that 90 vacancies were reserved for male candidates and two were reserved for female candidates. The Court observed that the stand canvassed by the respondents, that the 90 vacancies in the examination notification was for male candidates, discouraged women candidates to apply. The Court stated that expressed otherwise, it sought to interpret the stipulation in the Examination Notice regarding the number of vacancies, in a manner which would be prejudicial to women candidates who desired to apply. Such an interpretation could not be countenanced at all.
The Court further observed that “we are, mercifully, no longer in those times in which discrimination could be made between male and female candidates so far as entry into the Armed Forces or, for that matter, anywhere else is concerned”. Further,it was open to the respondents, while advertising the posts for recruitment, to incorporate terms and conditions necessary for a candidate to be qualified for admission and once such stipulations were prescribed, and the candidates who fulfilled the stipulations had to be necessarily treated equally.
The Court observed that in the present case, the only requirement for candidates who desired to be appointed as “Air Force (i) Flying”, was the possession of a Fit to Fly certificate. Since, the petitioner possessed such certificate, thus, the only ground on which the petitioner could be denied appointment was, if there were no vacancies available to accommodate her.
The Court noted that 90 vacancies, which were not specifically reserved for female candidates, were open to both male and female applicants and only 70 male candidates qualified, and the remaining 20 vacancies were left unfilled. Further, the petitioner could not be denied relief on the ground that, if she does not qualify through the NDA, she might qualify through some other mode.
The Court stated that undisputedly, 20 of the 90 vacancies which were not earmarked for female candidates remained unfilled. Thus, the petitioner being 7th in the merit list of women candidates after the two candidates who had been selected, there was no basis whatsoever not to appoint her against one of the remaining 20 vacancies. Further, if after appointing the successful women candidates against the remaining 20 vacancies, any vacancy remained unfilled, it would be open to the respondents to fill up those vacancies by any other mode of recruitment.
The Court while relying on Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1668 observed that Arshnoor Kaur case (supra) was the latest in a long line of decisions of the Supreme Court which emphasise the principle of gender neutrality. Further, it was not permissible for anyone to interpret or administer any stipulation, advertisement or notification in a manner which would be gender skewed. The Court observed that the distinction between male and female has, in the present time, been reduced to nothing more than a chance chromosomal circumstance, and ascribing, to it, any greater relevance would be illogical as well as anachronistic.
Considering that there were eligible female candidates who had cleared the examination, the Court observed that the respondents were not justified in keeping 20 vacancies unfilled and they were required to fill up the vacancies from the female candidates, who were lower in merit to the two candidates who had been selected.
The Court thus directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner, forthwith, against one of the unfilled 20 Air Force (i) Flying vacancies relating to the Examination. The Court further observed that the petitioner would be entitled to be treated at par, for all service benefits including seniority and other associated benefits, with the 70 male and 2 female candidates who had been selected and appointed via the Examination Notification.
[Archana v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5745, decided on 25-8-2025]
*Judgement by: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Sahil Mongia, Yash Yadav and Sanjana Samor, Advocates
For the Respondent: Chetan Sharma, ASG with Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Dev Pratap Shahi, Varun Pratap Singh, Yogya Bhatia, Amit Gupta, Naman, Shubham Sharma, Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar Singh and Vasu Agarwal, Advocates
