The court affirmed that historical assumptions of ineligibility adversely affected ACR evaluations for promotion, warranting a reevaluation of eligibility for Permanent Commission among Short Service Commission Officers.

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, CJI.

Applications for intervention are allowed, and the Applicants therein are directed to be impleaded as Intervenors.

2. The instant batch of appeals arises from a long and unsettled chapter in the service jurisprudence of the Indian Navy. It has been instituted by a group of roughly 25 Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs), the majority of whom are women seeking the grant of Permanent Commission (PC). At its core, this dispute does not concern mere instances of non-selection; rather, it calls for a detailed evaluation of the fairness and transparency of the process by which officers, after long years of service, were assessed for career permanence.

3. In brief, the Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs), together with certain similarly-placed male officers, approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi (AFT), seeking redressal after PC was not granted to them. By its Judgment dated 27.09.2024 (Impugned Judgment) and orders dated 13.02.2025 and 06.03.2025 (Impugned Orders),the AFT allowed their Original Applications (OAs) and directed the Respondents to reconsider all SSCOs who had not been granted PC in the Selection Boards convened in December 2020 and September 2022. Such reconsideration was to be undertaken afresh, after duly notifying the assessees of the criteria, methodology, and parameters governing the assessment.

4. Notwithstanding the apparent relief granted, the Appellants still felt aggrieved and have approached this Court contending that the direction effectively consigns them to yet another Selection Board, after two full rounds of litigation before multiple fora, and after more than fifteen years spent in pursuit of an equitable opportunity for consideration. According to them, the directions in the Impugned Judgment merely perpetuate the career uncertainty that has marked almost their entire service profile.

A. FACTS

5. Given the chequered history of litigation, it is necessary, before turning to the legal questions that arise for determination, to trace the factual trajectory which has given rise to these appeals.

5.1. The Appellants and Intervenors before us, comprising both male and female officers, were inducted into various branches/cadres of the Navy between 1999 and 2011. Most of the Appellant-SSCWOs were inducted at a time when women officers were not eligible to be considered for the grant of PC in their respective branches/cadres. Some of their male counterparts, who are also before this Court, are aggrieved by their own non-selection for PC. Of the SSCOs involved in these proceedings, 7 have since retired from service, while the remaining continue in service pursuant to interim orders staying their release. The Respondents comprise the Union of India through the Ministry of Defence, the Director of Personnel (OA&R) of the Navy, the Chief of the Naval Staff, and the Commander (Personnel)–Log of the Navy.

5.2. To appreciate the nature of the grievances raised, it is necessary to first understand the structural and regulatory framework within which the Navy operates, particularly in relation to the grant of PC.

5.3. Although the Army, Navy, and Air Force together constitute the Indian Armed Forces, each service functions through its own institutional architecture. The Navy, with a sanctioned strength of approximately 11,000 officers, is the smallest of the three. It follows a pyramidal hierarchical structure, characterised by a broad base of junior officers ta