Grant permanent commission to women officers with no pending issues: SC

It was only on September 28 the army had released the results of the 72 women officers when it came to light that they had achieved the 60% threshold fixed by the court judgment.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday told the Union government and Army to come back with orders granting permanent commission to those among the 72 women short service commission officers (WSSCO) who do not have any disciplinary or vigilance issues pending against them.

(PTI file photo)

Hearing the contempt petitions filed by the 72 officers who were declared unfit for permanent commission (PC), the bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna directed the Army to segregate the names of those officers who face doubtful integrity or serious disciplinary issues. “You have to set your house in order,” the bench told army.

Directing this exercise to be done by the next date of hearing on October 22, the court reminded the army that no additional factors could be introduced to deny PC under the March 25 order of the court that prescribed 60% marks based on their track record as decided by the Selection Board, medical fitness, and vigilance/disciplinary clearances.

Appearing for the Centre, additional solicitor general (ASG) Sanjay Jain said the 72 officers have been declared unfit as their service records show serious charges such as “disobedience of orders, lapses in government procurement, forging medical documents, poor work ethics, lack of professionalism, un-officer like conduct, poor performance in courses” that render them unfit under the Army Policies of 1983 and 2012.

In June, the army filed a clarification application in the top court to know whether the judgment of the court requiring the women officers to clear the 60% merit benchmark and medical fitness will automatically mean they are fit for PC or the army can declare them unfit on the above issues of integrity and discipline. The application was dismissed on August 2 as “not maintainable” and the court directed the army to comply with its March 25 order.

The bench said, “We are conscious of the fact that this is the Army. If there is a problem on vigilance or disciplinary grounds, you can remove them. But for the rest of the officers, come with order granting PC on the next date. If an officer has issues relating to vigilance/discipline, we make it clear we will not interfere.”

It was only on September 28 the army had released the results of the 72 officers when it came to light that they had achieved the 60% threshold fixed by the court judgment.

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing in the contempt petition, said, “The fact that these officers have been issued release orders shows that they do not face any discipline or vigilance issues. Now, there are new grounds being brought in to deny us PC.”

The court reiterated, “All women officers who have attained 60% marks shall be entitled to PC, subject to medical fitness, disciplinary and vigilance clearance. The question is can there be supervening or additional factors to be considered beyond what the Court has stated. You wanted this but did not get this in your clarification application.”

ASG Jain told the court that the Special No 5 Selection Board held in September 2020 that considered the grant of PC for these officers considered even their vigilance and disciplinary clearance. “We are willing to share the confidential records of each of the 72 officers to the Court to satisfy the grounds on which they were denied PC. These pertain to serious questions of integrity as per Army policies,” Jain said.

It was the army’s claim that out of the 529 WSSCOs opting for PC, 514 fulfilled 60% marks criteria and 72 among them were held ineligible on other grounds. The army filed an affidavit explaining that all orders passed in the March 25 judgment were complied with.

“We are not faulting you but we do not want to get behind our judgment and scrutinise each file. We have already undertaken a long exercise,” the bench said. The court directed Jain and senior advocate R Balasubramanian, appearing for army, to scrutinise each case and examine where there are serious vigilance or disciplinary grounds to reject PC. “We would trust you as officers of the court to carry out this exercise,” the bench added.

Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, who appeared in one of the contempt petitions, informed the court that the army has asked the 72 women officers to put in their papers or else their pension benefits will be withdrawn. The court said, “Tell your clients not to be anxious about these issues. We understand the feeling of humiliation they have suffered. Till the next date, hold your horses.”