SC Grants Relief to SSC Women Officers Under Article 142

Case Details: Lt. Col. Pooja Pal vs. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 584 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Surya Kant, CJI | Ujjal Bhuyan & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
• Ms V Mohana, Ms Rekha Palli, Abhinav Mukerji, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Advs., Santosh Krishnan, Rakesh Kumar, Ms Amrita Panda, Ms Tanya Shree, Aors, Ashwin Joseph, Sudhanshu Shekhar Pandey, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Anish Venkatesh Bindlish, Roshan Kumar, Maitreya Mahaley, Ms Nandita Lal, Ms Bhavya Sharma, Vaidushya Parth, Yimyanger Longkumer, Kamei Bestman Kabui, Chipika Zhimo, Ms Archita Nigam, Ms Khusboo Hora, Vinay Kumar, Ms Amisha Kumari, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Ruchir Josh, Ms Shaswati Parhi, Arjun Moha, Anmol Gupta, Ms Bhumika Yadav, Advs. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms Riddhi Jad, Ms Shreya Jain, Ms Anupriya Srivastava, Nitin Chowdhary P., Chitvan Singhal, Ms Shreya Jain, Bhuvan Kapoor, Ms Agrima Singh, Mrs. Pankhuri Srivastava, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Ms Shivika Mehra, Rajeshwari Shankar, Santosh Kumar, Indra Sen Singh, Ms Kaberi Sharma, Deepak Thakur, Ms Pushpanjali Singh, Vipul Kumar, Ms Gursimrat Kaur, Manoj Kumar, Advs., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Anuj Kapoor & Kaustubh Shukla, Aors for the Appearing Parties.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellants were Short Service Commissioned Women Officers (SSCWOs) from Courses 4 to 7 (2010–2012) considered for Permanent Commission (PC) with their male counterparts by regular No. 5 Selection Boards under 24.02.2012 policy.

The appellants asserted that they were routinely denied criteria appointments and were excluded or not timely detailed for key courses such as Junior Command Course, and that even when posted in sensitive operational roles, this was not accurately reflected in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)/Member Data Sheet (MDS); they contended that these disparities depressed their profiles and value judgment scores.

Further, the respondents stated that criterion-based appointments were not a prerequisite for PC and carried no separate marks, and that course marks were merely an average of completed courses, without regard to the number or nature of the courses.

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) recorded that criteria appointments were relevant only later for No. 3 Board (Colonel) and not mandatory for the PC, that ‘Courses’ carried 10 marks on an average basis and the appellants’ course gradings predominantly lay in ‘B’ and ‘C’ bands, and it concluded that such disparities did not affect No. 5 Selection Board results.

Further, a policy dated 15.01.1991 fixed an annual cap of 250 PC vacancies, with a 60% minimum cut-off and competitive selection if eligible officers exceeded the cap, and a 22.01.1991 File Noting explained the proportional allotment of vacancies among batches and the non-transferability of unfilled slots.

In 2020, alongside a Special No. 5 Selection Board pursuant to Babita Puniya, a regular No. 5 Selection Board considered SSCWOs-4/SSCWOs-5 with SSC-90/SSC-91.

Also, the appellants argued that the 250-cap was outdated, had historically been breached, and operated to indirectly disadvantage SSCWOs; they further claimed that vacancies were miscomputed by apportioning between batches considered in a calendar year rather than between March/September courses of the same commissioning year, resulting in withholding of vacancies from the September 2010 course.

The Respondents maintained that 250-cap was a cadre-management necessity applied in a gender-neutral manner, that past breaches were exceptional, and that since 1991, vacancies had been apportioned between two batches considered in the same calendar year (with 2020 being a COVID-driven exception); they asserted September 2010 and March 2011 courses were properly clubbed for vacancy apportionment in December 2020.

The AFT held 1991 cap continued to govern PC considerations, had been observed save for sanctioned exceptions, was gender-neutral in operation, and vacancies were correctly apportioned between two batches considered within the same calendar year, rejecting claim of miscalculation and indirect discrimination.

On appeal, the matter was considered by the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court noted that the ACRs of the appellant-SSCWOs were graded casually without adjudging their suitability for career progression, and such grading adversely affected their overall comparative merit.

Further, it was noted that the ACRs of the appellant-SSCWOs were not graded with due diligence and fairness to determine their suitability for PC.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that when evaluative frameworks were applied to assess their performance under various parameters, they often lacked depth and rigour compared to those applied to their male counterparts. These assessments have inevitably influenced their service records, comparative merit, and career progression.

Further, the differential treatment of the appellant-SSCWOs in respect of criteria appointments and additional/optional courses had adversely impacted their overall scores in the No. 5 Selection Board.

It was observed that since the appellant-SSCWOs, who did not meet merit-wise cut-offs in their respective assessments, had lost out on the grant of PC by small margins, even a minor distortion in the value judgment became determinative of the outcome.

The denial of PC to SSCWOs was not merely an outcome of individual assessments, but a consequence of a systemic framework rooted in assumptions that entrenched disadvantages in career progression.

Further, the Supreme Court observed that the inclusion of the SSCWOs in the zone of consideration for PC was not a matter of discretion, but of constitutional obligation and, therefore, any expectation to the contrary was inherently illegitimate.

The Supreme Court held that the finding of the AFT to the effect that differential treatment of the SSCWOs on aspects of optional courses and criteria appointments had no impact on the results of No. 5 Selection Boards was patently erroneous and untenable.

Since the apportionment of vacancies was in line with provisions of policy circular dated 15.01.1991 and sustained standard practice of the Army, there was no merit in the appellants’ claim that vacancies available for their batches were computed incorrectly or arbitrarily.

It was appropriate to invoke powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant such relief which was moulded towards doing complete justice between parties.

Further, the Supreme Court held that the appeals preferred by the Appellant-SSCWOs were to be allowed and those filed by the Appellant-male SSCOs were to be dismissed, and the claim made by the appellant-male SSCOs that they ought not to be considered alongside SSCWOs was liable to be outrightly and decisively rejected.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi in OA-28-2022, dated 03.07.2024 (para 67) modified

List of Cases Referred to

• Babita Puniya v. Secretary 2010 SCC Online Del 1116 (para 4.11)
• Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020) 7 SCC 469 (para 4.17)
• Lt. Col. Nitisha v. Union of India [Writ Petition (C) No. 1109 of 2020] (para 4.22)
• K. Purushottam Reddy v. Union of India (2025) 9 SCC 722 (para 63).