2026 INSC 281

Page 1 of 60

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

(Arising out of Diary No. 33222 / 2025)

Page 2 of 60

JUDGEMENT

SURYA KANT, CJI.

Applications for intervention and impleadment are allowed, and the

Applicants therein are directed to be impleaded as Intervenors.

2. 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.

3. 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 3 of 60

A. FACTS

4. 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 4 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 1

st

course are

commissioned in March, while officers of the 2

nd

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 5 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 imme diate 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 6 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.

3. 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 1

st

course -240 x 250/320

= 187.5, say 188

(e) Nos to be selected from the 2

nd

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 7 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 8 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. Secretary

1

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 9 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 10 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 Course s: 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 11 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

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 12 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 (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 13 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 (supra), multiple SSCWOs approached this Court once

again, by virtue of Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 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.

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 14 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 (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 (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 15 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 (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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 (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

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

Abhinav Mukherji, learned Senior Counse l; 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 20 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 (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 (supra).

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

decision in Babita Puniya (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 21 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 8

th

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 22 of 60

especially during the relevant time for the Junior Command Course.

In contrast, their male counterparts were detailed for this course

after their 6

th

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 (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 23 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 24 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 (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

(supra). Since the vacancies were to be apportioned between the

Page 25 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 (supra). Much like the officers in Lt. Col. Nitisha

(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 (supra), the instant

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

relief as granted in Lt. Col. Nitisha (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 26 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.

6. 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 27 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 28 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 200 8

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 29 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 30 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 (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 31 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 32 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

7. 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 33 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.

9. 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’.

10. 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 34 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 35 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 36 of 60

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 37 of 60

ACRs could not realistically reflect such potential or be held to be

indicative of such capacity.

18. 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.

19. 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 38 of 60

20. 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

21. 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 39 of 60

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 40 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 41 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.

29. 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 42 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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 43 of 60

33. 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.

34. 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

35. 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 44 of 60

which those vacancies were computed. This is the issue on which all the

Appellants seem to join hands.

36. 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

37. 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 45 of 60

38. 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?

39. 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.

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

historical practice. The record placed before the AFT, particularly the

Page 46 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 5

th

year of service, but from

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

th

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 10

th

year

of service.

41. 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 5

th

year of

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

th

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

strength were created to accommodate a larger number of SSCOs being

Page 47 of 60

granted PC. A similar exercise appears to have been undertaken for the

separate consideration in the 10

th

year of service as well.

42. 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.

43. 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).

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

is neither sacrosanct nor immutable. As already observed by this Court

Page 48 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

45. 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.

46. 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 49 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.”

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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 50 of 60

is based on the year of conduct of the No. 5 Selection Board, not the year

of commission.

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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 51 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.

53. 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.

54. 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 52 of 60

55. 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.

56. 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 (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.

57. 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 53 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

58. 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.

59. 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.

60. 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 54 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.

61. 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 55 of 60

such a representation, no enforceable expectation could arise in favour

of the Appellant-male SSCOs.

62. 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.

63. 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 others

4

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 56 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

65. 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 57 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.

66. 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 58 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.

67. 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 59 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 60 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.

68. Ordered accordingly.

69. 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