The issue in this case was regarding the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) to Short Service Commission Officers (SSCO’s) in the Indian Navy. The conflict arose when the Policy Letters dated 26 September 2008 was issued, which stipulated that only women from certain branches (JAG, Education and Naval Architecture), would be considered for grant of PC with a prospective application.
The case of Cdr. Seema Chaudhary versus Union of India and Others evolved as an aftermath of the Union of India vs Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja case. In the case of Annie Nagaraja, the Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja along with other officers challenged the above Policy Letter as being discriminatory and based on unreasonable grounds. The Court noted that the statutory bar on the enrolment of women in the Indian Navy was lifted by the notifications issued in the year 1991 and 1998. Moreover, this Court held that the policy decision of the Union Government dated 25 February 1999 would govern the conditions of service of SSCOs including women officers in regard to the grant of PCs. The Court held that the impugned PL being prospective and restricting it to specified cadres was invalid. Consequently, directed that all SSCOs in the Education, Law and Logistic Cadres who were “presently in service”, shall be considered for the grant of PC.
In the instant case, the petitioner Cdr. Seema Chaudhary is a JAG Branch officer recruited on Short Service Commission in 2007. Even after many years of service, she was denied PC due to lack of vacancies. The petitioner approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which issued directions, considering the petitioner along with the Law Cadre officers from previous batches.
The petitioner aggrieved by the directions issued by AFT, filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that considering her candidature alongside the officers of previous batches was prejudice to her appointment.
The respondents contended that such a consideration with subsequent batches was made in order to ensure that a fair opportunity was granted to all concerned officers and to widen the field of consideration.
The Supreme Court hearing the contentions of both the parties analyzed the directions issued by AFT. The court noted that by considering the candidature of the petitioner for the grant of PC along with the batches of 2011 and 2014, the AFT has deviated from the judgement passed by this court. Further, stated that to do so would amount to introducing a condition to the Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja case. The court held that any directions which de-hors the judgment of the Court could not be issued.
The Court also clarified that the increase in the vacancies which is created to accommodate the petitioner shall not create any precedence for the future. The court, thus, exercised its powers under Article 142 to ensure principles of Natural Justice and Equality.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Keerthi K
