The Supreme Court on Friday asked the government to explain the reasons for finding 72 women Army officers ineligible for permanent commission. It said they should not be relieved from service till the next date of court hearing.
A Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna intervened after the lawyers for the women officers said their clients were disqualified despite satisfying the 60% assessment threshold for permanent commission as prescribed by the court in a judgment in March last.
The March 25 order directed the government to grant permanent commission to “Women Short Service Commissions Officers who obtained 60% marks in their assessment subject to their meeting the medical criteria prescribed by the Army's August 1 2020 order and receiving disciplinary and vigilance clearance.”
‘Violation of order’
The women officers, represented by senior advocates Meenakshi Arora, Huzefa Ahmadi and V. Mohana, said their disqualification was a gross violation of the March judgment.
“The Supreme Court was very clear on permanent commission. We all have above 60 per cent. We are all medically fit. And there is no vigilance case against us. We fulfil all criteria for permanent commission,” Ms. Arora submitted.
The court has asked the government to produce a complete chart of the reasons. It posted the case for October 8.
Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain said the 72 women officers would have been rejected for individual reasons and not disqualified on the basis of a blanket one. He agreed to analyse the reasons in each case.
He sought time of two weeks to come back to the court with all the relevant details.
Mr. Ahmadi said what had happened was an abuse of process.
On March 25, the top court had said that the evaluation criteria set by the Army for granting permanent commission to women SSC officers constituted “systemic discrimination” which has caused an economic and psychological harm and an “affront to their dignity”.
The apex court said the administrative requirement imposed by the Army while considering the case of WSSCOs for PC, of benchmarking them with the officers lowest in merit in the corresponding male batch, is “arbitrary and irrational”.
It had said this administrative requirement “shall not be enforced” while implementing the last year's verdict of the top court which had directed that women officers in the Army be granted PC.
It had directed that all women officers, who have fulfilled the cut-off grade of 60% in the Special No. 5 Selection Board held in September last year, shall be entitled to grant of PC subject to their meeting medical criteria prescribed by the general instructions dated August 1, 2020 and receiving disciplinary and vigilance clearance.
It had said that medical criteria stipulated in the general instructions shall be applied at the following points of time -- at the time of fifth year of service or at the time of tenth year of service, as the case may be.
“In case the officer has failed to meet the medical criterion for the grant of PC at any of these points in time, the WSSCO will not be entitled to the grant of PC,” it had said.
The top court had clarified that a WSSCO, who was in the temporary low medical category (TLMC) in the fifth or tenth year of service and subsequently met the SHAPE-1 criterion after the one year period of stabilization, would also be eligible for grant of PC.
On February 17 last year, in a landmark verdict, the top court had directed that women officers in the Army be granted permanent commission, rejecting the Centre's stand of their physiological limitations as being based on "sex stereotypes" and "gender discrimination against women".
The apex court had directed that within three months, all serving SSC women officers have to be considered for PCs irrespective of them having crossed 14 years or, as the case may be, 20 years of service.
(With inputs from PTI)
