The doctrine of legitimate expectation and the reasonableness and fairness of state action in denying the benefit to the appellants were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.

1. The batch of appeals which forms the subject matter of the present dispute emanates from a judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 11 August 2011. The High Court in its lead judgment dated 12 March 2010 in Babita Puniya’s Case [Babita Puniya vs. Secretary and Another, (2010) 168 DLT 115 (DB)] issued specific directions for considering women Short Service Commissioned Officers¹ [“SSCOs”] in the Air Force and in the Army for the grant of Permanent Commission² [“PC”]. Following the decision of the Delhi High Court in Babita Puniya, a batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came to be instituted before the Delhi High Court seeking the benefit of the Babita Puniya judgment. The Delhi High Court by its judgment dated 11 August 2011 dismissed the batch of six writ petitions. The High Court held that the petitioners who had moved the specific proceedings were not covered by the directions contained in Paragraph 61 of the earlier decision in Babita Puniya. This batch of appeals has questioned the manner in which the decision of the Delhi High Court in Babita Puniya has been implemented by the Indian Air Force.

Brief Background

2. The appellants are women officers who joined the Indian Air Force³ [“IAF”] as SSCOs between 1993 and 1998. They were appointed in terms of a circular dated 25 November 1991 issued by the IAF which provided that the officers would initially be granted Short Service Commission⁴ [“SSC”] for a period of five years, at the end of which they would be considered for the grant of Permanent Commission ⁵ [“PC”] subject to suitability and availability. The circular noted that women officers who were unwilling to opt for PC but sought extension would be granted an extension for six years. The terms and conditions, as referred to in paragraph 4 of the Circular dated 25 November 1991, specified the tenure of engagement in the following terms:

“Clause 5: Tenure of Engagement: Initial engagement period would be for 5 years from the date of commissioning. On completion of this period, the officer may opt for PC or another SCC tenure of 6 years. The officers seeking such extension will not be eligible for PC. Grant of extension or PC would be subjected to suitability and requirement of the Air Force.

Clause 6: Permanent Commission: SSC Officers granted PC will be eligible for all benefits/privileges, which are admissible to the regular PC Officers.”

3. The Indian Air Force issued advertisements pursuant to the policy circular inviting applications from women to join as SSCOs, with a representation that the women officers would be initially granted SSC for a period of 5 years, but at the end of tenure, PC would be granted subject to vacancies and suitability of the officer. The relevant portion of the advertisement is extracted below:

“A Unique opportunity for dynamic young girls: march to a new horizon as a commissioned officer in the Indian Air-force training:

..............

TENURE OF ENGAGEMENT: Initial engagement would be for a period of 5 years from the date of commissioning with the provision to opt for PC or another tenure of six years. Grant of permanent commission depend upon vacancy and suitability of the officer.”

CAREER PROSPECTS: SSC Officers will be entitled for promotion under conditions as applicable to Permanent Commissioned officers of Non-Tech Ground Duties Branches.”

4. However, after rendering five years of service, the authorities offered an extension of a period of six years to all the women officers, including the appellants. Their cases for the grant of PC were not considered at that stage. However, the Indian Air Force, considered only male officers for PC. Women were excluded.

5. In 2003, a Public Interest Litigation was instituted before the High Court of Delhi by Babita Puniya, an advocate, for the grant of PC to women SSC Officer