Systemic evaluative bias and vacancy caps cannot preclude Permanent Commission for women officers.

The Appellants are roughly 73 Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs), predominantly women (SSCWOs) from Courses 4 through 7, commissioned between 2010 and 2012.

Historically, women were inducted into the Indian Army with a maximum tenure of 14 years and were ineligible for Permanent Commission (PC).

Following the High Court’s decision in Babita Puniya v. Secretary (2010) and the Supreme Court’s affirmation in Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020), women became eligible for PC.

The Appellants were considered for PC by the regular No. 5 Selection Board in 2020 and 2021, which utilizes an evaluation system comprising 95% computerized marks (primarily Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)) and 5% "Value Judgement".

Most Appellants were denied PC due to "lower comparative merit".

They approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), alleging that their ACRs were graded casually during the period they were ineligible for PC and that they were denied "criteria appointments" and career-enhancing courses.

The AFT dismissed their applications, holding that the 250-vacancy cap per year (Policy dated 15.01.1991) was gender-neutral and that no bias existed.

The Court primarily applied the principles of gender parity and non-discrimination under the Constitution of India, as interpreted in Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020) 7 SCC 469.

The Court applied the precedent of Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Indian Army (2021) 15 SCC 125, which recognized "indirect discrimination" in the Army's evaluation of women officers.

The Court analyzed the Government of India Policy Circular dated 15.01.1991 regarding the 250-vacancy ceiling.

The Court evaluated the methodology prescribed in the Policy dated 24.02.2012.

The Court further invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do "complete justice".

The Court found that since SSCWOs were ineligible for PC for most of their careers, assessing officers authored their ACRs with the assumption of limited tenure, leading to middling "casual grading".

Under a bell-curve system, higher grades were disproportionately reserved for male officers perceived to have a long-term "career horizon".

This created a systemic disadvantage that could not be cured by mere anonymization at the Selection Board stage.

The Court observed that exclusion from "criteria appointments" and courses like the Junior Command Course unfairly depressed the "Value Judgement" scores.

Regarding the vacancy cap, the Court noted that the 250-limit had been frequently breached (2002-2012) for exigencies and policy transitions, proving it was not "sacrosanct".

However, it upheld the Army's method of apportioning vacancies between batches considered in a calendar year, rather than the year of commissioning.

Finally, the Court rejected the male SSCOs' claim of "legitimate expectation," noting that the 2010 High Court judgment granting women PC eligibility was in force when they were commissioned, rendering any expectation of an all-male pool unreasonable.

It held that the denial of PC was the result of a systemic framework that entrenched disadvantages in career progression.

Under Article 142, the Court directed that SSCWOs who scored above the 60% cut-off in the 2020-2021 Boards (excluding JAG/AEC) be granted PC, subject to medical and disciplinary clearance.

SSCWOs released from service during the litigation are deemed to have completed 20 years of qualifying service and are entitled to pension and consequential benefits (excluding arrears of pay).

Pension arrears shall be paid from 01.01.2025.

The Army must review its ACR evaluation method for future batches to eliminate disproportionate impacts on women.