The Delhi High Court has held that once women are permitted entry into Army corps or branches that have been notified under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, the authorities cannot impose any policy or administrative restriction on the number of women who may be inducted. The judgment came in a writ petition filed by several women who claimed appointment against unfilled male vacancies in Short Service Commission (Non-Technical) posts.
The main issue arose because a notification had reserved certain vacancies for women, but the remaining vacancies (not earmarked for women) had also remained unfilled after male candidates were selected. The women petitioners argued that restricting their appointment only to the seats reserved for women — while other seats remained vacant — violated principles of gender neutrality and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
It was submitted by the respondents that the women had participated in the selection process with full knowledge that only a certain number of positions were reserved for women, and that they cannot later challenge the process on that basis. The respondents also relied on precedents where courts have held that candidates who participate in a recruitment process cannot later complain about the rules of selection that were known in advance (cases such as Dr (Major) Meeta Sahai and Manish Kumar Shahi were invoked).
The Delhi High Court, however, rejected those arguments. It held that fundamental rights such as equality under the Constitution are not subject to waiver simply because a candidate participated in a recruitment exercise under rules that discriminate. The Court drew upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India, which emphasized that after women are allowed into a corps under Section 12, the executive cannot cap their “extent of induction” by policy or administrative instruction. The Court observed that any administrative or policy restriction which limits how many women may be inducted into a notified branch or corps is impermissible under law.
In applying these principles to the present case, the Court found that there were 62 unfilled male vacancies in the Short Service Commission (Non-Technical) stream. The petitioners who were eligible and had applied should not be deprived of appointment just because the vacancies were originally earmarked only for male candidates in policy or administrative instructions. Since the rules did not limit the unreserved vacancies only to male candidates explicitly, and since women candidates had fulfilled all eligibility criteria including age, fitness etc., the Court directed that the petitioners be considered for appointment against those 62 unfilled male-vacant posts.
The Court clarified that this relief applies only to those women candidates who were within the prescribed age limit as on the date of declaration of results, and who satisfy other eligibility and suitability conditions prescribed for the relevant posts. It directed the authorities to issue joining letters where necessary.
With those observations, the writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioners.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.