IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review of executive policy decisions is permissible only if found to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory rules. Policy decisions should provide reasonable opportunities for consideration.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral) - The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated March 16, 2021, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`AFT', for short) in Original Application No.1967/2020 (`OA', for short), seeking quashing of the HR Policy (`HRP', for short) dated January 16, 2019.

2. According to the petitioner and as contended by Mr. Ankur Chhibber, the AFT vide order dated March 16, 2021 has disposed of the OA by directing the respondents to grant the petitioner another chance to appear before the Third Board of Officers and declined to interfere with the HRP dated January 16, 2019.

3. The facts as noted from the record are that the petitioner was commissioned as a Short Service Commissioned Officer (`SSC Officer', for short) on January 02, 2007 in the Aeronautical Engineering Branch of Indian Air Force and trained on the Mirage 2000 Aircraft in the Aircraft Stream. According to her, she has unblemished service record with various awards and appreciations.

4. It is her case that, after she completed the initial ten years of service, four years extension was granted. At the time of filing of the application, she had completed 15 plus years of service.

5. The petitioner's case before the AFT was that, her case for grant of Permanent Commission (`PC', for short) was to be considered as per HRP 21/2006 dated May 25, 2006 whereas her case was considered as per HRP dated January 16, 2019, whereby new pre-requisites were added for the very first time, which were to be complied with for grant of PC, which are:

a. First a candidate should now posses a minimum score in the mandatory course as an average of 6 CGPA.

b. Second condition was that he or she should also have a valid category of at least `Cat C'.

c. Minimum Average of 7 in last 5 ARs.

Whereas, the policy for extension of service or grant of PC in vogue at the time of petitioner's commission into the force was:

i. The required `ACR grading' of 6.5 in 3 ARs for either extension or permanent commission;

ii. A fit `medical category'.

6. It was the case of the petitioner that the two new pre-requisites in the HRP of 2019, have been included/added in an arbitrary manner and a sudden change was brought with regard to the rules of the game.

7. It was the case of the petitioner that the new qualitative requirements, in fact, pertained to examination and courses which were already undertaken by an officer in the initial years of service and these courses were not given any weightage at that point of time, as they were merely in-service mandatory courses for professional growth. However, all of a sudden by prescribing a minimum qualitative requirement of mandatorily having 6 CGPA, the right which had accrued to the petitioner for consideration at the time of recruitment, HRP 21/2006 has been suddenly changed. It was also stated that, because of the arbitrary implementation of the new HRP, the petitioner has lost her three chances guaranteed under the policy for consideration. It was also stated that the petitioner's claim was put for consideration before the Board of Officers (`BoO', for short) for grant of PC within one month and fifteen days of the HRP, 2019 coming into force on January 16, 2019.

8. According to the petitioner, the first BoO was held in March 2019. The petitioner was held not qualified for want of `Cat-C'. It was her case that it was not at all possible to be category "C" within one and a half month after the policy coming into effect on January 16, 2019. The petitioner appeared in the requisite examination and attained the `Cat-C' certificate on July 25, 2019. Even thereafter in May 2020, the Second BoO has denied the benefit on the ground that she did not come within the merit list as per the vacancy.

9. In substance, it is her case that the merit criteria evolved on the basis of certain additional eligibility criteria brought into force with regard to a course undertaken in the initial period of recruitment is unsustainable and is an