Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has told the Union government and Naval authorities that any new condition cannot be introduced in the way of grant of permanent commission to woman short service commission officers, in view of binding judgment of this court in Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja in 2020.

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli directed the authorities to reconvene a selection board afresh to consider the case of petitioner, Cdr Seema Chaudhary, who has been denied permanent commission on the ground that there were no vacancies. 

The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Navy as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Judge Advocate Generals (JAG) Branch of the Indian Navy on August 6, 2007. She was promoted on August 6, 2009 as a Lieutenant and, thereafter, on August 6, 2012 as a Lieutenant Commander. During the course of her service, she was granted an extension in November 2016 for a period of two years and, thereafter, for an equivalent duration in August 2018. On August 5, 2020, the petitioner was informed that she would stand released from service on August 5, 2021.

She filed a writ petition but was relegated to the Armed Forces Tribunal by the Supreme Court in 2021.

After the AFT's order, a plea was moved in the Supreme Court which was disposed of in 2022. The court decided to recall its order of 2022.

"The earlier part of this judgment indicate that the petitioner is a JAG Branch officer recruited on Short Service Commission in 2007. Clearly, therefore, she was recruited at a time when the Policy Letter (PL) dated 25 February 1999 held the field. The subsequent PL dated 26 September 2008 which was prospective in nature was specifically dealt with in the judgment of this court in Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja case," the bench said.

"The Court (had then) directed that the PL which made it prospective and confined to certain specific branches would not be enforced. In other words, the case of the petitioner for being considered for the grant of PC was squarely required to be dealt with in terms of the position as it stood independent of the PL dated 26 September 2008," the bench added.

The court found merit in the challenge to the direction which has been issued by the AFT requiring that the candidature of the petitioner for the grant of PC should be dealt with the batches of 2011 and 2014. 

"To do so would amount to introducing a condition which was not a part of the judgment of this Court in Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja. The binding judgment, which has to be enforced is the decision of this Court in Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja. Any directions de-hors the judgment of the Court could not obviously be issued," the bench said.

The court pointed out though the case of the petitioner has been considered after the decision in Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja, there is a serious element of prejudice which has been caused to the petitioner which must be rectified so as to enforce the final directions of this court. 

The bench directed the Selection Board to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on a stand alone basis since it is common ground that she was the only serving JAG Branch officer of the 2007 batch whose case for the grant of PC was required to be considered. 

"The consideration by the Selection Board shall take place uninfluenced by any previous consideration of her case for PC and uninfluenced by any observations contained in the order of the AFT," the bench ordered.

Using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench said if a proportional increase in the vacancies is required to be created to accommodate the petitioner, this should be carried out without creating any precedent for the future, so as to ensure that while no other officer is displaced, a long standing injustice to the petitioner is duly rectified. 

The court passed its directions for carrying out the exercise by April 15 on a review petition by the petitioner.