Delhi HC Rules NDA Air Force Flying Vacancies Not Male-Reserved, Orders Woman’s Appointment

Upholding gender equality in the armed forces, the Delhi High Court has ordered the Centre to appoint a woman candidate to the Air Force Flying branch through the NDA 2023 examination.

A division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, in a ruling passed on August 25, observed: “..We are, mercifully, no longer in those times in which discrimination could be made between male and female candidates so far as entry into the Armed Forces  or, for that matter, anywhere else is concerned.”

The judges stressed that while recruitment notifications can prescribe qualifications and eligibility conditions, once those are met, men and women must be treated alike.

On May 17, 2023, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued an examination notice for 92 vacancies in Air Force (i) Flying under the National Defence Academy (NDA) and Naval Academy (NA) Examination (II). Of these, two were earmarked for women candidates. Ultimately, the two women’s seats were filled, 70 men were selected, and 20 seats remained vacant.

The Court rejected the Centre’s contention that the balance 90 posts were meant exclusively for men, clarifying that apart from the two earmarked for women, the remaining vacancies were open to all candidates.

The petitioner, Archana, who had cleared the exam and interview and was certified “Fit to Fly” by the Appeal Medical Board, stood seventh in the women’s merit list. Aggrieved that she was denied an appointment despite 20 vacancies remaining, she approached the court seeking relief.

Appearing for her, advocate Sahil Mongia argued that the notification did not mean 90 seats were reserved for men; rather, they were open to all candidates, male and female. Since Archana had cleared all requirements, she was entitled to be considered.

The Centre, represented by advocate Varun Pratap Singh, contended that only two vacancies had been earmarked for women, and the remaining 90 were intended for men. Any shortfall, it said, would be met through other recruitment modes such as the Air Force Common Admission Test (AFCAT) and the Combined Defence Services Examination (CDSE).

Rejecting this view, the Bench held that reading the 90 as “male-only” would be untenable, and contrary to the government’s own policy of encouraging gender balance in recruitment. “Once we have held that 90 vacancies which were not earmarked for female candidates were open to all candidates, female as well as male, the sequitur is obvious. Only 70 male candidates qualified. Twenty vacancies are, therefore, going abegging,” the bench observed.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India (2025), which emphasised gender neutrality in military appointments, noting that once women are permitted entry, their numbers cannot be capped by policy.

Drawing parallels with the judiciary, the Court said, “the Supreme Court also took note of the fact that, in the entrance examinations for judicial services, women have been outperforming men. We may carry the example further by recording, with a sense of satisfaction, that, even in our daily experience in the court, the number of young women lawyers entering the profession and practising before us exceeds the number of young men, and we presage, in a large majority of such youngsters, a bright future for the legal profession.”

It stressed that the distinction between male and female has, in the present time, been reduced to nothing more than a chance chromosomal circumstance, and ascribing to it any greater relevance would be illogical as well as anachronistic.

Against this backdrop, the Court said it would be impermissible to interpret or administer recruitment rules in a gender-skewed manner.

Accordingly, the Court directed that Archana be appointed against one of the 20 unfilled vacancies and extended all service benefits, including seniority, on par with the 70 male and 2 female candidates already appointed.

Case Title: Ms Archana vs Union of India

Order Date: 25 August 2025

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla