Promotion in army: SC seeks govt reply on plea by women officers

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud directed the central government to respond by March 11.

The Supreme Court on Monday sought a response from the Centre on a contempt petition filed by 30 women army officers alleging discrimination in the process for their empanelment for promotion vis-à-vis male officers.

Representational Image

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud directed the central government to respond by March 11. “Once we find that the process was fair, we will leave it,” the court said. “You (Centre) file a short affidavit indicating what was the criteria followed for empanelment of male officers.”

The petitioners challenged a decision of the special no 3 selection board that concluded in December to empanel just eight out of 136 women officers as Colonels against 42 vacancies. It was a violation of the November 3 order of the top court, which directed the army authorities that the selection board should not include women officers who were already empaneled by the selection board convened in January 2023, the petition said.

“The attitude of discrimination persists. The direction was not to include empaneled officers. They have done precisely that,” senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, who appeared for the petitioners along with advocate Rakesh Kumar.

The merit of the empaneled officers served as a cut-off for deciding the merit of the officers to be empaneled from that batch, said attorney general R Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre. There was no question of contempt as the empaneled officers were not competing with the non- empaneled officers for the vacancies, he added.

“There is no contempt. As such, it is very difficult to say if contempt is made out,” the court observed. “They did not reconsider those who got empaneled but considered their merit as a benchmark. The idea was to protect those officers who have attained that benchmark, so that their merit is not disturbed.”

“If they were so sacrosanct about including empaneled officers, why the same thing has not happened for male batches?” Ahmadi asked. “The empaneled officers were not included while considering the non- empaneled male officers. This way, more males could be brought in.”

“Did you follow the same procedure for male batches?” the court enquired Venkataramani. The attorney general assured the court there was no discrimination, even as the court insisted on an affidavit to be filed. It posted the matter for further hearing on Monday (March 11).

“Any fallout of this order can have some effect. It will be better for the petitioners to move the armed forces tribunal (AFT), which can examine the facts of the case,” Venkataramani said. He pointed out that comparative merit in each batch was an important consideration that guided empanelment and the decision in question considered empanelment of women officers from the 1992 to 2006 batches.

While 42 vacancies are available, all were not meant to be exhausted by the petitioners, he said. Soon after the November 3 order, the Centre filed an application in the top court for clarification, he added.

“The order of November 3, 2023 has apparently been construed by the women officers to mean that the balance 42 vacancies are to be utilised only for conduct of Spl No 3 SB of women officers who were not empanelled in the special selection board held in January last year. The understanding seems to be misconceived,” the application said.

The women officers in their petition narrated how at every stage they were being made to fight for equal rights despite winning an order in February 2020 from the top court for grant of permanent commission across non-combat streams, and later in March 2021, which scrapped the assessment policy adopted by the army’s selection board to be discriminatory and arbitrary for women officers vis-à-vis their male counterparts.

“The respondents (Centre and army) have conducted Special No. 3 Selection Board in highly clandestine and unfair manner and failed to implement the order dated November 3, 2023 and they have even willfully disobeyed the expressed direction of this Court,” the contempt petition prepared by the 30 officers said.

“Before conducting Selection Board No. 3, the respondents were bound to allocate the batch-wise & year-wise vacancies and minimum one vacancy must have been given batch-wise year wise...Considering already empaneled officers with non-empaneled officers was violation of principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 & 16(1) of the Constitution,” it said.

The November 3 order directed that a “fresh exercise of reconvening Special No 3 SB shall be conducted no later than within a fortnight from the date of this order for all the women officers who were considered by the earlier Special No 3 SSB (except for those officers who have already been empaneled).”