Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment

1. On 3 October 2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court noted the objection of learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents in this writ petition to the effect that the petitioners had, with them, an equally alternate efficacious remedy by way of an original application before the learned Armed Forces Tribunal1. The matter was re-notified for considering this preliminary objection. 1 “the learned AFT” hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 13425/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:14.05.2025 15:46:01

2. We have, today, heard Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mishra, learned CGSC for the respondents, at length on this issue.

3. The synopsis filed with the present writ petition, in its opening paragraphs, encapsulates the grievance of the petitioners. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the said paragraphs thus: “That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with policy letter dated 23.11.2021 and policy letter dated 29.03.2024 and with liberty from Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.04.2024 in Misc. Application No. 2395/2023 in MA No. 1913 in W.P. No. 1913/2022, to pursue such substantive remedies as are available in law, before appropriate forum, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court challenging the validity of policy dated 23.11.2021 and policy dated 29.03.2024 as provisions of the these policies grossly violate the principle of equality and contemplate two highly unequal and distinct classes i.e. Women Officers and gentleman officers, in Indian Army, as equal and contemplate to treat unequals equally and thereby infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners(women officers) guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. It is submitted that such provisions of the aforesaid policies are liable to be quashed and the respondents may be commanded by this Hon’ble Court to reformulate the policies and accordingly Special No. 2 Selection Board may be conducted for exclusive consideration of women officers for their promotion to Brigadier Rank, instead of wrongly, arbitrarily and unconstitutionally conducting Regular Selection Board No. 2 for considering the women officers with gentlemen officers, on the basis of impugned policy letter dated 23.11.2021 & 29.03.2024. It is submitted that from the judgment dated 25.03.2021 in Nitisha v Union of India2 it is well established that since short service commissioned women officers in Indian Army, before the judgment dated 17.02.2020 in Ministry of Defence v Babita Puniya3 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, were only eligible for extension of service and they were denied consideration for permanent commission, hence they were treated differently in