An eligible candidate’s selection category may be changed where instructions impose no express prohibition.

The respondent, an Indian Army personnel enrolled in the Corps of Engineers on 16 June 2009, applied in January 2024 for Permanent Commission (Special List)-2024 and opted for the Record Officer category.

After appearing before the Services Selection Board on 10 May 2025, he submitted a representation dated 12 June 2025 seeking consideration for the Administrative Officer cadre in the Military Engineering Services (MES), on the ground that his earlier service in the Engineer-in-Chief’s Branch was reckonable as MES service.

His request was rejected on 7 July 2025, prompting him to file O.A. No. 2760/2025 before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT).

The AFT held that the respondent fulfilled the eligibility criteria, had secured merit in the common selection process, and that his exclusion from the Administrative Officer (MES) cadre resulted from an inadvertent and bona fide mistake.

Although the respondent had missed 8 of the 12 weeks of mandatory training, the AFT directed that he be considered for the Administrative Officer (MES) cadre and posted for the next training batch.

Whether Clause 10 of the Standing Instructions governing applications for Permanent Commission prohibited the respondent from changing or seeking consideration for another category after initially opting for the Record Officer category

Whether the AFT committed a patent illegality or error apparent on the face of the record by directing consideration of the respondent for the Administrative Officer (MES) cadre

The Court applied Clause 10 of the Standing Instructions dated 17 January 2007 issued by the ADG MP-2, governing applications for Permanent Commission.

The provision permitted an applicant to apply for more than one category and did not expressly stipulate that a candidature would be rejected, or that a category could not be changed, where the applicant satisfied the prescribed eligibility conditions.

The Court further applied the limited scope of judicial review over an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal: a writ court does not sit as an appellate court to re-appreciate the merits of the Tribunal’s view in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record or material illegality.

The Court held that Clause 10 did not expressly prohibit a change of category or prescribe rejection as the consequence of failing to mention a particular category initially.

Since the respondent was already serving in the Army, had qualified on merit, and fulfilled the eligibility requirements for the Administrative Officer (MES) cadre, his subsequent representation could properly be treated as correction of a factual or bona fide omission rather than an impermissible afterthought.

The Court also noted that the Instructions did not require a separate application for each category and that the respondent had communicated his intention to be considered for the Administrative Officer cadre.

Accordingly, the AFT’s interpretation was consistent with the scheme of Clause 10.

The High Court found no error apparent or material illegality warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

It held that the respondent could be considered for the Administrative Officer (MES) cadre notwithstanding his initial option for the Record Officer category.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the pending applications were also disposed of.