Supreme Court: While considering these appeals preferred by a group of Service Commission Officers (SSCOs) of the Indian Army comprising primarily of several Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) seeking grant of Permanent Commission (PC), the 3-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, CJI*, Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ., grimly flagged the unfair manner in which women officers have been treated due to certain systematic traits in the functioning of the Armed Forces. The Court pointed out that the inclusion of SSCWOs in the zone of consideration for PC is not a matter of discretion, but of constitutional obligation and any expectation to the contrary is inherently illegitimate.
The Court found 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.
Background
The SSCWOs (appellants) approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi (AFT), praying for the grant of PC. However, vide judgements dated 3 July 2024 and 4 September 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 SSCWOs’ male counterparts, who were commissioned alongside them in September 2010 and March 2011, have also challenged the impugned judgements, aligning themselves with the women officers on certain common issues.
Issues and Court’s Assessment
Alleged Casual Grading of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the Appellant-SSCWOs and the Effect Thereof
The Court noted that 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. Each ACR comprises several graded components, in addition to a distinct section for “Box Grading” as well as “Recommendation for PC or Extension”. 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”. For consideration for PC, ACRs carry determinative weight, accounting for 75 out of the total 100 marks.
Perusing the contentions of the parties, the Court noted that the practice of assigning lower or average grades to women officers have become normalised, as there was no real consequence or benefit to receiving higher grades. Having never been evaluated for suitability for long-term career progression, since none existed, their ACRs could not realistically reflect such potential or be held to be indicative of such capacity. 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. “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”.
Thus, the Court observed that appellants’ 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.
Alleged Unfair Assessment of SSCWOs due to Disparity in Appointments and Courses
The Court pointed out that material placed on record establishes a consistent pattern of limited access to criteria appointments and career-enhancing courses for SSCWOs. “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”.
On this issue, the Court concluded that the differential treatment meted out to the appellants had translated into reduced marks under the value judgment component of the assessment.
The Cap on Vacancies and their Calculation
Having held that the appellants were subjected to structural disadvantages both in the grading of their ACRs and in access to career enhancing opportunities, the Court delved into 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 which those vacancies were computed.
The Court firstly clarified that has not entertained a challenge to the very existence of a ceiling on the number of SSCOs who may be granted PC each year as such a decision essentially falls within the policy domain; however, Court’s power and duty to judicially review such a policy within the framework of constitutional standards.
Perusing the policy, the Court thus concluded that 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.
The Purported Legitimate Expectations of the Appellant- Male SSCOs
On this issue, the Court stated that the 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 Babita Puniya v. Secretary, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116, dated 12 March 2010.
Decision and Directions
With the aforestated assessment, the Court found that denial of PC to the appellants was rooted in a systemic framework based on assumptions that entrenched disadvantages in career progression. Where the evaluative 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. Hence, the Court deemed it appropriate to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to grant such relief which is moulded towards doing complete justice between the parties.
Therefore, the Court directed the following:
-
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;
-
As a one-time measure, the appellants and the intervenor-SSCWOs, who have been released from service during the pendency of these proceedings, whether before the AFT, before the High Court, before the Supreme 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;
-
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 1 January 2025. The Court clarified that that this direction does not apply to the appellants and intervenors who form part of the JAG and AEC cadres, as they have been eligible for consideration for PC since 2010;
-
The appellants and intervenors 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.
-
As a follow-up to the direction issued in Paragraph 120(viii) of Nitisha v. Indian Army, (2021) 15 SCC 125, 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.
Similar Matters
Considering a batch of appeals filed by 6 SSCWOs in the Indian Air Force, seeking the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) after being denied such relief through successive selection processes, the Court dismissed the appeals stating that the Court has dismissed similar cases wherein released and employed officers approached judicial fora belatedly, particularly in situations where they voluntarily left service and secured alternate employment.
Considering yet another matter, instituted by a group of roughly 25 SSCOs of Indian Navy the majority of whom were women SCCWOs seeking the grant of Permanent Commission (PC), the Court allowed the appeals and modified the directions issued by the AFT by way of the Impugned Judgement dated 27 September 2024, and the subsequent Impugned Orders dated 13 February 2025 and 6 March 2025 and directed as a one-time measure, that instead of convening a fresh Special Board for reconsideration of the SSCOs’ cases for the grant of PC, the following categories of officers, who were considered for the grant of PC by the Selection Board convened in December 2020 and are presently still in service, shall be entitled to the grant of PC:
-
SSCWOs who were inducted into the Navy prior to January 2009;
-
SSCWOs who were inducted into the Navy after January 2009 in branches/cadres excluding Law, Education, and Naval Architecture;
-
Male SSCOs who were barred from consideration for PC as per their initial terms of service/entry
It was directed that for all future Selection Boards vis-a-vis Indian Navy, the respondents shall issue appropriate General Instructions, prior to the conduct of such Board, laying down: the vacancies available in each branch/cadre for each batch; the detailed criteria for evaluation along with the apportionment of marks for each criterion; and any other information that may be necessary to supply to the officers under consideration for that purpose.
[Pooja Pal v. Union of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 9747 – 9757 / 2024, decided on 24-3-2026]
Also Read: In Conversation with Radhika Ghosh: Law, Discipline and Armed forces
*Judgment by CJI Surya Kant
