$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14740/2025 SAMYUKTA MENON .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey and Mr.

Roshan Kumar, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC, Mr. Kautilya Birat, Mr. Ankush Kapoor and Mr. Vishwadeep Chandrakar, Advs. for UOI with Major Anish Muralidhar and Major Kanika Sharma (Army)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

O R D E R

% 05.02.2026 CM APPL. 76158/2025

1. Though this application seeks various modifications of our judgment dated 30 October 2025 passed in WP(C) 14740/2025, Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions restricts his prayer to a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to join training with the JAG-36 course, the training of which is scheduled to commence in the first week of April 2026.

2. Notice had been issued on this application on 3 December 2025. No reply to the application has been filed. However, we have heard Mr. Swain, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents and Mr.

Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

3. By our judgment dated 30 October 2025, we had, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arshnoor Kaur v. UOI¹, directed as under:

“13. In that view of the matter, as the issue is squarely covered, we allow this writ petition by directing that the petitioner would be entitled for being recruited as SSC Officers against the unfilled male vacancies, as, given her merit position, she will qualify for selectionthereagainst.

14. Needless to say, however, the petitioner would have to qualifytherequisitemedical tests andotherformalities.

15. We also note that, in our decision in Shruti Vyas, it was pointed out that the actual allocation of streams takes place after the training is complete. As we have done in Shruti Vyas, we clarify that the entitlement of the petitioner for deployment against the unfilled vacancies of men would be conditional on her being found suitable for deployment against the identifying corps and services inparagraph45 ofArshnoor Kaur.”

4. We are not informed that the aforesaid judgment of ours has been challenged or has been varied or stayed by any superior Court.

5. The predicament noted by the petitioner in this application is that, owing to the laps of time, it is not possible for her to join training with the batch against which her candidature has been considered. She, therefore, prays that she may be allowed to join training with the next batch, i.e., the JAG 2026.

12025SCCOnLineSC1668

6. We feel that the prayer is well merited and has to be granted in order to ensure that our order is not rendered a dead letter.

7. Accordingly, we allow this application to the limited extent that the petitioner would be entitled to join training with the next batch of JAG 2026 which we are told is scheduled to commence in the first week of April 2026.

8. We do not express any opinion on any of the other reliefs sought in this application. However, it would be open to the petitioner to ventilate any such reliefs, if permissible, in accordance with law.

9. Learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that paragraph 15 of the order dated 30 October 2025 would not apply to recruitment to the JAG. We clarify accordingly.

10. The application is disposed of.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

FEBRUARY 5, 2026/aky