Tribunal must reconsider interim stay if dismissal was based on an erroneous finding of fact.

The petitioner, a Major in the Military Nursing Services (MNS), challenged an order dated January 21, 2026, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, New Delhi.

The AFT had dismissed the petitioner’s application for interim relief, which sought to stay her release order dated July 14, 2025, pending the final adjudication of her Original Application (O.A. 3103/2025).

The petitioner contended that the AFT’s dismissal was based on the incorrect factual premise that she had not sought a permanent commission, whereas her prayer clause specifically requested such a grant.

Additionally, the petitioner argued that her rejection for permanent commission was based on arbitrary marking (maximum marks of 50 in both written and interview stages) and that she was entitled to protection under Supreme Court interim orders.

Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal erred in dismissing the interim relief application based on the erroneous premise that the petitioner had not sought a permanent commission.

Whether the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Pooja Pal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. is applicable to the petitioner’s case.

The Court considered the principle of judicial review over interlocutory orders where there is an apparent error on the face of the record regarding the pleadings.

It referred to the Supreme Court’s clarification in Lt. Col. Pooja Pal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9747-9757/2024), which extended interim protection to officers whose cases regarding permanent commission are sub judice before the Supreme Court, High Courts, or the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The High Court found that the AFT’s impugned order was fundamentally flawed because it proceeded on the incorrect factual assumption that the petitioner—an MNS officer—had not sought a permanent commission.

Upon perusing the prayer clause of the O.A., the Court confirmed that the substantive relief sought was indeed permanency as an MNS Officer.

Regarding the applicability of the Lt. Col. Pooja Pal precedent, the Court noted the respondents' contention that the ruling was gender-specific (seeking parity for women with men); however, it did not express a final opinion on this, instead focusing on the procedural error regarding the pleadings.

Given that the petitioner’s discharge was imminent (scheduled for February 28, 2026), the Court determined that the matter required a fresh, expedited consideration by the Tribunal to prevent the O.A. from becoming infructuous.

The Court directed the Tribunal to decide the application on or before February 28, 2026, requesting the matter be listed before the Tribunal on February 26, 2026.

All contentions of both parties were left open for canvassing before the Tribunal.