In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has instructed the Union government to grant permanent commission to a woman officer serving in the Army Dental Corps, who had been unjustly excluded from benefits available to her peers. The bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan characterized the situation as one of discrimination, stating, “What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander,” thereby emphasizing the need for consistency and fairness in the application of policies.
The court’s decision comes in response to an appeal filed by the officer, who holds the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and is stationed in Agra. The justices noted that her distinguished service record, including the commendation card awarded to her by the Chief of Army Staff in January 2019, should have warranted inclusion among those considered for permanent commission. The court utilized its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to rectify the oversight, asserting that the exclusion was improper.
During the proceedings, the justices highlighted the profound commitment of Indian soldiers, drawing attention to the challenging conditions under which they serve, such as in Siachen glacier and other difficult terrains. They questioned the fairness of denying relief to similarly situated officers based solely on technicalities, reinforcing the idea that equitable treatment should extend to all deserving individuals within the armed forces.
The court underscored that accepting the government’s stance would endorse an “unreasonable stand” and detrimental discrimination. The officer had been serving since 2007, and the bench emphasized that her exclusion from opportunities granted to others in similar situations was a significant oversight.
Moreover, the court mandated that the government implement its directive within four weeks, ensuring the officer receives all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion, and any monetary dues. The ruling was delivered following a challenge to a January 2022 order from the Armed Forces Tribunal that had denied the officer’s request for relief comparable to that provided to others by a previous ruling in 2014.
The bench outlined that the officer was commissioned as a short service officer in March 2008, and regulations at that time allowed for three chances to take the departmental examination for permanent commission. However, amendments in 2013 restricted her opportunities, inadvertently barring her from the chance to compete for permanent commission alongside her peers, as she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy during the relevant litigation.
The justices noted the prior ruling found validity in the amendments but nonetheless offered one-time age relaxation to some applicants for their permanent absorption, of which the officer had not been a part due to her circumstances at that time. The bench observed that the absence of provisions prohibiting similar considerations meant the officer was entitled to the same relief granted to others.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officer, affirming her right to parity with other applicants who had received benefits under the previous judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal. The court articulated that the authorities should proactively extend the benefits of prior rulings to all similarly situated individuals, remarking on the essential principles of justice and nondiscrimination in governmental actions.
