Yogendra Kumar Singh vs Union Of India

2026 INSC 282 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 14681 / 2024

Yogendra Kumar Singh …Appellant(s)

versus

Union of India and others …Respondent(s)

with

Civil Appeal No. 3769 / 2025

Civil Appeal Nos. 13062 - 13064 / 2024

Civil Appeal No. 14981 / 2024

Civil Appeal Nos. 14982 - 14988 / 2024

Civil Appeal No. 5425 / 2025

Civil Appeal No. 5433 / 2025

Civil Appeal No. 5450 / 2025

Civil Appeal Nos. 3492 - 3493 / 2025

Civil Appeal No. 9776 / 2025 Civil Appeal No. 9774 / 2025 Civil Appeal No. 9777 / 2025 Civil Appeal No. 12604 / 2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2026.03.24 11:47:57 IST Reason: Page 1 of 49 JUDGEMENT

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 judgement dated

27.09.2024 (Impugned Judgement) 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.

Page 2 of 49

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 Judgement 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.

Page 3 of 49 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

tapering sharply towards a limited number of senior command positions.

Organisationally, the Navy is divided into four principal branches: (i)

Executive; (ii) Electrical; (iii) Engineering; and (iv) Education.

5.4. The induction of officers on Short Service Commission (SSC) was

originally conceived as a measure to address manpower shortages

following the exodus of British personnel from the Indian Armed Forces.

For several decades, only male officers were inducted as SSCOs, owing

to the conditional statutory bar on the recruitment of women contained

in Section 9(2) of the Navy Act, 1957.

5.5. The regulatory framework governing service conditions was subsequently

elaborated through the Regulations for the Navy Part III (Naval

Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Regulations 1963)

(1963 Regulations), framed under Section 184 of the Navy Act, 1957.

Regulations 122(14) and 203 expressly contemplate the grant of PC to

suitable SSCOs, subject to the availability of vacancies and prevailing

Page 4 of 49 regulations. Before we tread any further, let us reproduce the text of the

aforementioned Regulations:

“Regulation 122: Short Service Commissions [xxxx] (14) Permanent Commissions - Suitable officers may be considered for the grant of Permanent Commission in the Indian Navy at any time after successful completion of the period of probation, subject to the existence of vacancies and regulations current at the time.

[xxxx] Regulation 203: Grant of Permanent Commission (1) Subject to the availability of vacancies in the stabilized cadre of the Navy, Permanent Commission may be granted from time to time to Short Service Commission Officers of the rank of Sub Lieutenant and above who are considered suitable and are recommended by the Chief of the Naval Staff.

(2) Officers granted Permanent Commission may be transferred, with their existing rank and seniority. The retention of any acting rank held by an officer at the time of transfer to a Permanent Commission shall be governed by Regulation 202.

(3) Short Service Commission Officers selected for the grant of Permanent Commission in the Navy shall conform to the medical standard laid down by the Chief of the Naval Staff from time to time.” [Sic] [Emphasis Supplied]

5.6. Until 1991, SSCOs in all the technical branches, barring the Naval

Constructor cadre, were considered for the grant of PC periodically,

guided by service requirements rather than any uniform, annualised

policy. The transition from SSC to PC was governed directly by

Regulation 203, as reproduced above. Each eligible batch was ordinarily

entitled to two opportunities for consideration: a ‘First Look’ in the sixth

year of service alongside the batch immediately senior to them, and a

‘Second Look’ in the seventh year alongside their immediate juniors.

Page 5 of 49 5.7. A significant shift occurred with the notification dated 09.10.1991,

issued under Section 9(2) of the Navy Act, 1957 and published on

26.10.1991, whereby women were permitted to be inducted as SSCOs in

select branches/cadres, namely, Logistics, Law, and Education.

Consequently, through two communications dated 20.12.1991, the

specific service conditions for SSCOs in these three branches/cadres

were prescribed. While the tenure of male SSCOs was fixed at seven

years, SSCWOs were appointed for a five-year term, subject to review.

Importantly, it was indicated that a policy for the grant of PC to SSCWOs

would be promulgated in 1997. The scope of women’s induction was

further expanded by a notification dated 06.11.1998, permitting

SSCWOs to enter all four branches of the Navy.

5.8. The Ministry of Defence issued a communication on 25.02.1999 to the

Chief of Naval Staff, informing that the President of India, in reference to

the guidelines laid down in the communications dated 20.12.1991, had

sanctioned certain terms and conditions of service of SSCOs, including

women. It was clarified that the grant of PC would be in accordance with

Regulation 203 of the 1963 Regulations. Further, SSCWOs of all

branches/cadres could be directed to serve onboard ships during

training and subsequent employment, if the exigencies of service

so required.

5.9. Prior to 2002, the tenure of SSCOs was fixed at seven years, with

discretionary extensions up to ten years. This was later revised by a

communication dated 27.02.2002 to ten years, with a maximum

Page 6 of 49 extension of up to fourteen years. Until 2008, however, SSCOs in several

non-technical branches were not considered for PC, in accordance with

their initial terms of entry.

5.10. A turning point emerged with the policy dated 26.09.2008, whereby the

Union of India permitted prospective consideration for PC for SSCWOs in

the Education, Law, and Naval Architecture branches/cadres. The

Implementation Guidelines dated 03.12.2008, proposed to permit all

SSCOs (male and female) from these branches/cadres, inducted after

January 2009, to be eligible for consideration for PC. These

‘Implementation Guidelines’ laid down a structured choice in the sixth

year of service between opting for PC or extension, and contemplated

selection by a Selection Board based on inter se merit derived from the

Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), subject to the availability of

vacancies. This policy decision concerning the prospective grant of PC to

SSCWOs inducted after January 2009 in limited branches/cadres

became the inflexion point for sustained litigation concerning

consideration for PC on the basis of cadre, batch, and sex.

5.11. Shortly thereafter, on 28.10.2009, the Navy Headquarters amended the

existing ACR format by including a column for formal endorsements for

PC by the Initiating Officers (IOs). These endorsements could be ‘B’ i.e.

recommended for PC or ‘D’ i.e. not recommended for PC. The purpose of

this amendment was to obtain a clear opinion on the suitability of the

assessee for PC during the period under review.

Page 7 of 49 5.12. In the meantime and in the wake of the High Court of Delhi’s (High

Court) judgement dated 12.03.2010 in Babita Puniya v. Secretary,1

which held that all SSCWOs serving in the Army and Air Force were

entitled to be considered for PC, an SSCWO in the Navy, namely, Annie

Nagaraja (who is also the Appellant before us in Civil Appeal No.

5425/2025) along with several others, approached the High Court by

way of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. They sought

to contest the ‘prospective’ nature of the policy dated 26.09.2008 and its

confinement to only three branches/cadres. These Writ Petitioners,

inducted between 1992 and 2001 into the Logistics, Air Traffic Controller

(ATC), and Education branches/cadres in the Navy, highlighted the

anomaly of being discharged after fourteen years of service without a

single opportunity for PC consideration.

5.13. The High Court, vide judgement dated 04.09.2015 in Annie Nagaraja

v. Union of India,2 drew upon the reasoning of the coordinate Bench in

its decision dated 12.03.2010 and took a serious view of the continued

denial of PC to SSCWOs inducted prior to 2009. The High Court held

that, in terms of the letter dated 20.12.1991, the SSCWOs had a

legitimate expectation of being considered for PC from 1997 onwards,

and the failure to operationalise this assurance had materially impeded

their career progression. Upon finding the policy dated 26.09.2008 to be

irrational and discriminatory, the High Court directed that those SSCOs

who had opted for PC, but were granted only extension and had not

1 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1116.

2 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11804.

Page 8 of 49 retired by the time the Writ Petitions were filed, be granted PC with all

consequential benefits. In respect of officers who had attained the age of

superannuation prior to the filing of the Writ Petitions, reinstatement

was directed, subject to the medical fitness of the officer and the outcome

of the Special Leave Petitions preferred by the Union of India against the

High Court’s judgement dated 12.03.2010, which was then pending

before this Court. Aggrieved by these directions, the Respondents chose

to assail this judgement by way of Civil Appeal No. 2182/2020, before

this Court.

5.14. The ripple effects of the High Court’s decision dated 04.09.2015 soon

reached the AFT. Citing the judgement dated 04.09.2015, six SSCWOs

from the Logistics, ATC, and Education branches/cadres approached the

AFT, seeking the grant of PC. In doing so, they challenged both the policy

dated 26.09.2008 and the Implementation Guidelines dated 03.12.2008.

These officers had been inducted pursuant to an advertisement issued

in July 2002, which expressly provided that “deserving officers” from the

ATC, Logistics, and Education branches/cadres “may also be considered

for PC.” Consequently, in its judgement dated 11.08.2016 in Priya

Khurana and Ors. v. Union of India,3 the AFT opined that the policy

dated 25.02.1999, whereby the Ministry of Defence had decided to grant

PC to both men and women SSCOs in accordance with Regulation 203,

continued to govern the field, and that the policy dated 26.09.2008 had

been promulgated without due regard to the earlier policy. On this basis,

3 2016 SCC OnLine AFT 798.

Page 9 of 49 the AFT directed the Respondents to consider the Applicants before it for

the grant of PC, irrespective of gender and cadre, within a period of six

months. These directions were challenged by both, the Respondents and

the SSCOs, before this Court, and the matters were accordingly tagged

with Civil Appeal No. 2182/2020.

5.15. While these challenges remained pending, this Court intervened to

preserve the status quo of service. By an interim order dated 20.11.2015,

it was directed that only those SSCWOs who were Petitioners before the

High Court and were in service as on 26.09.2008 be reinstated and

permitted to continue on the same terms as SSCOs until disposal of the

cases. Subsequently, by an order dated 28.10.2016, this Court further

permitted the SSCWOs who were Applicants before the AFT to continue

in service until further orders.

5.16. The legal position was finally crystallized by this Court through its

judgement dated 17.03.2020 in Union of India v. Annie Nagaraja.4

Upholding the judgement of the High Court, this Court quashed the

Implementation Guidelines dated 03.12.2008 to the extent that they

made the grant of PC prospective and confined it to specified

branches/cadres. The Respondents were directed to consider all serving

SSCOs in the Education, Law, and Logistics branches/cadres for the

grant of PC in accordance with Regulation 203, subject to the availability

of vacancies in the stabilised cadre at the relevant time and inter se merit

derived from the ACRs. In addition, all SSCWOs who had been denied

4 (2020) 13 SCC 1.

Page 10 of 49 consideration for PC on account of their induction prior to 26.09.2008

and were no longer in service, as well as those who were before the High

Court and the AFT but were not granted PC, were deemed, as a one-time

measure, to have completed substantive qualifying service for the

purpose of pension. It was categorically held that once the statutory bar

on women’s entry into the Navy was lifted, all SSCOs, irrespective of

gender, were to be governed by Regulation 203 in matters concerning PC.

Ultimately, the policy dated 26.09.2008 was found to be inconsistent

with the notifications dated 09.10.1991 and 06.11.1998. This Court

poignantly recorded that the Respondents had systematically failed to

implement the judgements of the High Court and the AFT, despite no

stay having been granted, leaving a large number of SSCOs serving for

over two decades without the grant of PC.

5.17. To give effect to the directions issued in Annie Nagaraja (supra), the

Respondents issued a circular dated 29.10.2020, proposing to conduct

a Selection Board in December 2020 to consider all SSCOs

commissioned prior to 30.11.2013. Officers already considered for PC

from the cadres of Law and Naval Constructor and the Electrical,

Engineering, and Education branches, as also all SSCOs of ATC, Sports,

and Information Technology (IT) cadres, were excluded from this

exercise. Willingness to be considered for PC was accordingly sought

from eligible officers. It is not in dispute that all the Appellants and

Intervenors before this Court were considered by the Selection Board

convened in December 2020.

Page 11 of 49 5.18. For the purpose of this exercise, the Navy devised a specific method to

identify vacancies. After identifying the stabilised strength of each

branch/cadre, the ideal PC strength was calculated at 60% of the

stabilised strength. Once the ideal PC strength was calculated, the

number of existing PC officers was deducted from the ideal PC strength.

The remaining figure signified the total deficiency and thereby, the

existing vacancies. This deficiency was then divided by 15 and

distributed among the batches under consideration as per the Dynamic

Vacancy Model. While this methodology distributed the deficiency across

batches, it simultaneously revealed that PC officers were overborne in

the Law, Executive General Service, and Naval Armament Inspectorate

(NAI) cadres, resulting in no vacancies therein. Further, only three

vacancies were available in the Naval Constructor cadre across

all batches.

5.19. The Selection Board assessed candidates on the basis of inter se merit

for each nominal year of vacancy. Keeping in line with the established

practice of affording each SSCO a First Look and a Second Look, the

Selection Board, convened in December 2020, considered officers from

two different years against each nominal year of vacancy, extending the

First and Second Look consideration accordingly.

5.20. Apart from direct ineligibilities such as adverse medical categorisation or

pending vigilance or disciplinary proceedings, the determinative criterion

for selection was inter se merit. For this purpose, the last five ACR cycles

Page 12 of 49 of each officer were evaluated, and marks were apportioned in

accordance with the Approach Paper, as follows:

“(a) CR Marking - 90%

(b) Slt Seniority - 4%

(c) War Assessment - 2% (Officer should not have been recommended G and below any time in the last five CR cycles held on record)

(d) Peer Assessment - 2% (Officer should not have been recommended G and below any time in the last five CR cycles held on record)

(e) Recommendation for PC - 2% (Officer should not have been graded NO in three or more times in the last five CR cycles held on records)

(f) Medical Category - The officers should be in Medical Category not below S2A2 (Pmt). Officers in Low medical category (LMC) for obesity would not be considered for PC, irrespective of medical category

(g) Discipline and Vigilance - Officers should have no Disciplinary and Vigilance case pending against them” [Sic]

5.21. A computer-generated merit list was prepared by aggregating the marks

awarded under these heads. Unlike the procedure employed by the Army

in its selection process for the grant of PC, no marks were assigned for

‘value judgement’. Further, beyond the criteria specified in the Approach

Page 13 of 49 Paper, no additional weightage was accorded for Honours, Awards, or

other achievements by the respective officers.

5.22. Through this process, from the cadres in which vacancies were available,

the Selection Board considered a total of 306 SSCOs, both male and

female, for the grant of PC. Of these, 80 officers were ultimately selected

to be granted PC. Immediately thereafter, the Respondents issued a

Signal Order releasing the remaining SSCOs from service on the ground

that they had not been granted PC and had completed their tenure

as an SSCO.

5.23. Aggrieved by their non-selection for PC, 20 SSCOs, including male and

female officers, approached this Court under Article 32 of the

Constitution, while 12 SSCOs filed OAs before the AFT. By an order dated

24.08.2021 in T. Rajkumar v. Union of India,5 this Court transferred

the said Writ Petitions to the AFT, with a direction that all such cases be

considered together. Owing to this, the grievances raised before the AFT

spanned several facets of the selection process, including the non-

disclosure of criteria for consideration, reliance on ACRs lacking any

endorsement regarding recommendation for PC, and alleged errors in the

computation of available vacancies.

5.24. Upon consideration of the material on record, the AFT delivered its

judgement dated 03.01.2022 in Lt. Cdr. Tarun and Ors. v. Union of

India.6 While broadly approving the Navy’s methodology for vacancy

5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3396.

6 2022 SCC OnLine AFT 5345.

Page 14 of 49 computation and its compliance with the directions in Annie Nagaraja

(supra), the AFT rejected most of the OAs on the ground that non-

selection was attributable to comparative merit vis-à-vis limited

vacancies. At the same time, the AFT identified specific lacunae in the

process, especially when it came to the cadres in which no vacancy was

available, and issued corrective directions. It directed, as a one-time

measure, that officers from overborne or low-deficiency cadres, such as

Law, Executive General Service, and NAI, be considered afresh by

creating proportionate vacancies to ensure fair First and Second Look

consideration. It further noted that due to low cadre strength and

irregular induction in the Law cadre, the 2011 and 2014 batches, which

ought to have been considered together in 2019, were left without

vacancies, and directed their consideration alongside Cdr. Seema

Chaudhary (2007 Batch). Finally, in respect of 8 vacancies left unfilled

due to rigid distribution and absence of suitable candidates, the AFT

directed that the next eligible officers in the merit list be granted PC.

5.25. In compliance with the AFT’s directions in Lt. Cdr. Tarun (supra), the

Respondents created additional vacancies and convened a fresh

Selection Board in September 2022, considering 263 SSCOs from the

overborne cadres. As a result, 21 additional officers were granted PC.

Some of the Appellants before this Court were considered by this

Selection Board but were, once again, not granted PC.

5.26. In the interregnum, several SSCOs, including some of the instant

Appellants, challenged the decision in Lt. Cdr. Tarun (supra) before this

Page 15 of 49 Court. They contended that all the information supplied to the AFT

regarding the manner of conducting the Selection Boards, the criteria for

preparing merit lists, and the ACRs relied upon for determining merit

scores was never disclosed to them. Rather, all such information was

furnished by the Respondents only to the AFT in a sealed cover. This, it

was claimed, deprived the officers of any meaningful opportunity to

contest the said material or defend their case.

5.27. This Court, vide judgement dated 07.11.2022 in Amit Kumar Sharma

v. Union of India,7 accepted the aforesaid contention. It was held that

disclosure of material exclusively to the Adjudicating Authority in a

sealed cover rendered the affected officers incapable of contesting the

AFT’s findings on the propriety of the Selection Boards and the alleged

absence of gender bias. Such a procedure was found to constitute a

breach of the principles of natural justice, besides setting a dangerous

precedent. Accordingly, this Court allowed the appeals, set aside the

judgement dated 03.01.2022, and remanded the matters to the AFT for

fresh consideration.

5.28. The officers who were granted PC on the basis of nominal vacancies

created as a result of the decision in Lt. Cdr. Tarun (supra) approached

this Court in 2023 for early re-instatement. Their claim was accepted

vide judgement dated 04.08.2023 in Lt. Cdr. Manish Kumar Singh and

Ors. v. Union of India,8 with directions to reinstate the said officers and

7 (2023) 20 SCC 486.

8 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 425/2023.

Page 16 of 49 grant them PC. However, this grant of PC would be subject to the

proceedings pending before the AFT, which eventually led to the

Impugned Judgement.

5.29. The AFT, after reconsidering the OAs that had earlier been disposed of

in Lt. Cdr. Tarun (supra), passed the Impugned Judgement, allowing

all the OAs and directing the Respondents to convene a Special Selection

Board to reconsider all SSCOs who had been considered by the Selection

Boards of December 2020 and September 2022 but were not granted PC.

Detailed instructions governing the conduct of the Special Selection

Board were directed to be issued, including the criteria, marks assigned,

overall assessment methodology, and other necessary particulars.

Officers not granted PC but having completed the minimum pensionable

service were directed to be released with full pensionary benefits. These

directions were issued owing to the AFT’s observation that crucial details

relating to criteria, vacancy computation, and cadre-wise apportionment

had not been disclosed to the officers under consideration, a practice

found to be inconsistent with comparable Special Selection Boards

conducted by the Army and Air Force pursuant to similar

judicial directions.

5.30. In the case of two officers, namely, Cdr. Asha Sharma and Cdr. Priyanka

Choudhary, their respective OAs were disposed of by the Impugned

Orders dated 13.02.2025 and 06.03.2025, respectively, in terms of the

Impugned Judgement. Some other officers have also filed Intervention

Page 17 of 49 Applications before this Court, claiming to be similarly aggrieved as the

Appellant-SSCOs and seeking analogous relief.

5.31. It is against this factual and procedural backdrop that the instant

appeals have arisen for our consideration. From 08.11.2024 onwards,

this Court has passed several interlocutory orders, extending interim

protection to some of the Appellants by permitting them to continue in

service.

B. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

6. Ms. Rekha Palli and Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, learned Senior Counsel;

Ms. Pooja Dhar, Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, and Mr. Anshuman Ashok,

learned Advocates-on-Record; and Mr. Sudhanshu S. Pandey, learned

Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellants advanced the following

submissions in support of these appeals:

(a) The Navy historically declined to grant PC to officers serving in

cadres where both male and female officers were inducted,

restricting PC exclusively to all-male cadres. Even after this Court’s

judgement in Annie Nagaraja (supra), pensionary benefits were

extended only to SSCWOs, while their male counterparts were

denied the same, resulting in unequal treatment within identical

cadres.

(b) The ACRs of officers serving in cadres where PC was unavailable to

those inducted prior to January 2009 were written under the

prevailing assumption that such officers would never be eligible for

Page 18 of 49 PC. Special Navy Order 02/2015 expressly requires the creation of

relative merit among officers of the same seniority while filling ACRs.

Thus, in a bell-curve-based appraisal system intended to generate

relative merit among officers of the same seniority, assessing officers

naturally prioritised those with prospects of career progression by

granting them better marks. The Appellants, both male and female

SSCOs, faced the same structural disadvantage recognised and

remedied by this Court in Lt. Co. Nitisha & Ors v. Union of India

& Ors.9 The adverse impact is more pronounced in the Navy, since

90% of the assessment is derived from ACRs, with no weightage for

medals, awards, honours, or achievements, unlike in the Army. The

entire evaluation, thus, rests on the discretion exercised by IOs or

the Commanding Officers (COs). Despite this, the AFT has issued

no directions to remedy this foundational defect while mandating a

fresh Special Selection Board.

(c) Once the column relating to recommendation for PC was introduced

in ACR format pursuant to Special Navy Order 05/05, the IOs/COs

could record only one of two endorsements: “Recommended for PC”

or “Not Recommended for PC.” Since the Appellants were ineligible

for PC as a class, this column was routinely filled with “Not

Recommended for PC” as a matter of default, without any actual

evaluation of their merit or suitability for promotion. The Appellants

were consequently denied PC solely because they had been marked

9 (2021) 15 SCC 125.

Page 19 of 49 “Not Recommended for PC” in three or more of the last five ACR

cycles, making the process inherently arbitrary.

(d) Regulation 203 requires that the grant of PC be considered subject

to the availability of vacancies in the stabilised cadre at the “material

time,” namely, when the officer becomes eligible for consideration.

For the Appellants, the material time would ordinarily have been

their sixth and seventh years of service, falling a few years before

the Selection Board of December 2020 was actually conducted. No

data has been disclosed by the Respondents regarding the

availability of vacancies at this material time, thereby vitiating the

process of consideration by requiring them to compete for a smaller

number of available vacancies in 2020.

(e) In essence, vacancies available at the material time for each batch

were not considered, contrary to Paragraph 96(vi) of Annie

Nagaraja (supra). Deficiencies ought to have been computed both

at the material time and at the time of the Selection Board, with the

higher figure being finally adopted. The discriminatory impact

becomes evident when contrasted with the vacancies announced for

junior batches whose material time fell between 2023 and 2025,

during which 87, 191, and 149 vacancies were announced,

respectively. Despite the Special Selection Board directed by the AFT

remaining incomplete, a substantial number of officers have

been granted PC through regular Selection Boards conducted

from 2023 to 2025.

Page 20 of 49

(f) In computing PC deficiency in a particular cadre, the total stabilised

cadre was not taken as the baseline for applying the 60:40 ratio;

instead, posts of Captain and higher ranks were excluded. Had the

full stabilised cadre been taken as the base, the resultant PC

strength and vacancies would have been significantly higher.

(g) In the Selection Board convened in December 2020, a ‘Dynamic

Vacancy Model’ was adopted, under which progressively fewer

vacancies were allotted to successively junior batches. This model

is not traceable to any prior policy, guideline, or judicial direction

and was arbitrarily devised for the December 2020 Board. Further,

the total identified vacancies were not fully utilised. In the Logistics

cadre, despite a deficiency of 28 officers, only 19 vacancies were

actually offered. Similarly, in the Education branch, despite a

deficiency ranging between 67 and 85 officers, only 34 vacancies

were opened.

(h) Although each SSCO is entitled to two opportunities for

consideration, i.e. a First Look and a Second Look, the conduct of a

single Selection Board for both Looks deprived the Appellants of the

opportunity to improve their ACRs and merit position between the

two considerations. Ordinarily, different ACR cycles would apply at

the First and Second Looks. However, in the Selection Board, the

same five ACR cycles were used for both Looks, resulting in no

substantive distinction between them. While the Appellants were

formally considered twice, the consideration was effectively

Page 21 of 49 identical. It also remains unclear which specific ACR cycles were

applied to individual officers at each stage.

(i) Material relating to the method of assessment adopted by the

Selection Boards was initially supplied only to the AFT in a sealed

cover during the proceedings in Lt. Cdr. Tarun (supra). Even

thereafter, the Appellants were not furnished with comparative

documents, including their own ACRs. Despite specific directions to

adjudicate the merits of the Appellants’ grievances, the AFT merely

relegated them to yet another Selection Board without addressing

the foundational defects alleged to have tainted the entire process

of selection. Furthermore, the directions in the Impugned

Judgement contemplate retired or released SSCOs being considered

alongside serving officers in the proposed Special Selection Board.

(j) While the objective of maintaining youth and agility in operational

cadres is not disputed, its uniform application across cadres where

experience and expertise are of greater relevance, such as Education

and Logistics, is unwarranted. Only about 27% officers of the rank

of Commander and above are required in operational billets, while

the remaining 72% serve in ground-based roles involving repair,

maintenance, design, and education.

(k) Three Appellants, namely, Cdr. Annie Nagaraja, Cdr. Urmila Bhat,

and Lt. Cdr. Barkha Rathore, have rendered over twenty years of

continuous service. Given such length of service, they ought to have

Page 22 of 49 progressed to the Time-Scale rank of Captain, a purely time-bound

advancement requiring completion of twenty-six years of

commissioned service. Instead, they continue to serve only

as SSCWOs.

(l) Despite long years of service in the Navy, SSCOs who are not

granted PC are released from service after completion of their terms,

without any pensionary benefits, medical coverage, or employment

security. On par with the relief granted in Annie Nagaraja (supra),

the Appellants who are not granted PC seek pensionary benefits on

deemed completion of the requisite qualifying service.

7. Per contra, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor-General of

India, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, submitted that the Navy’s

methodology for evaluation and vacancy allocation was transparent,

neutral, and consistent with judicial directions. In this regard, the

following submissions were adduced:

(a) The Respondents have not filed any appeal against the Impugned

Judgement and the Impugned Orders, and are considering their

implementation fairly and equitably. Although the Impugned

Judgement has not been stayed, the Respondents have moved a

Miscellaneous Application before the AFT, seeking more time to

complete the process of holding a Special Board anew. The

Respondents apprehend that moving forward to conduct another

Page 23 of 49 Special Board while this Court is seized of the matter would appear

to be overreaching the orders of this Court.

(b) As per the directives of this Court in Amit Kumar Sharma (supra),

all the relevant details, including the Appellants’ merit position,

parameters for consideration, and their weightage, which were

previously only disclosed to the AFT through a sealed cover, have

been supplied to the Appellants. Thus, the Respondents have

complied with this Court’s directions in letter and spirit.

(c) The procedure adopted for the Selection Board held in December

2020 was a one-time exercise wherein a large number of batches

were under consideration for PC. Therefore, mutually exclusive

vacancies were distributed amongst various batches so that officers

only compete amongst near peers with similar lengths of service.

The methodology for the calculation of vacancies was formulated to

grant equal opportunities to all SSCOs under consideration, to

ensure equitable distribution of the vacancies, and to comply with

this Court’s directions in Annie Nagaraja (supra). The reason

officers from batches inducted prior to 2008 and after 2008 were

considered jointly was that the material time for consideration of

officers inducted from 2011 to 2013 had arisen at the same time,

prompting this Court to direct the conduct of the Selection Board.

(d) Each officer was afforded two opportunities to be considered,

whereby their First Look would take place with the immediate senior

Page 24 of 49 batch, and the Second Look would take place with their immediate

juniors. Merit-cum-suitability was determined on the basis of the

last five ACR cycles, subject only to vigilance and

disciplinary clearance.

(e) The merit list was computer-generated on recorded parameters,

leaving no scope for gender-based or subjective assessment.

Further, the ACRs of the officers were assessed purely based on

performance and accomplishments during the discharge of specific

duties. The grading was not influenced in any manner by the mode

of entry or gender. Ultimately, the Appellants have not been selected

for PC by the Selection Boards in 2020 and 2022 only because of

low inter se merit.

(f) It is essential for the Navy to maintain a youthful and lean profile to

remain operationally effective. A pyramidal force structure is

optimally suited to meet the demands of armed combat and other

technical requirements. Junior and middle leadership levels are

directly involved in combat and operational roles and must,

therefore, be staffed predominantly by younger officers. A higher

average age within the Armed Forces diminishes cumulative combat

capability and adversely affects national security. These

considerations were also recognised and emphasised by the Ajay

Vikram Singh Committee. Removing the SSC system or

substantially increasing PC intake would, over time, have a

significant and adverse impact on the average age profile of the

Page 25 of 49 Navy. A similar effect would follow from permitting all SSCOs to be

retained until completion of minimum pensionable service.

(g) The rank of Captain (Time-Scale) exists to address stagnation

arising from limited vacancies in the rank of Captain and above.

Officers who are not empanelled for promotion to the rank of

Captain are promoted to the rank of Captain (Time-Scale) upon

completion of twenty-six years of commissioned service. No separate

sanction exists for the rank of Captain (Time-Scale); such officers

are counted within the sanctioned strength of the Commander rank

and are traditionally assigned Commander billets. The grant of

Captain (Time-Scale) is thus an administrative and human resource

measure rather than a substantive service upgradation.

(h) There is no shortage of officers in higher or select ranks within the

Navy. Deficiencies primarily exist at the rank of Lieutenant

Commander and below, that is, among officers with less than six

years of service. PC entries in the Navy are therefore optimally

calibrated to the current service requirements.

(i) Upon termination of service, SSCOs are entitled to leave

encashment for accumulated leave, terminal leave of up to 28 days,

and terminal gratuity. In addition, resettlement courses are

sponsored by the Directorate General Resettlement through

employment-oriented training programmes in various fields, with

only 40% of the course fee payable by the officer and the remaining

Page 26 of 49 amount sponsored by the Navy. A total of 29 such courses are

scheduled for retirees between April 2025 and March 2026, with

230 vacancies reserved for Navy officers. SSCOs are also eligible for

recruitment under the ex-servicemen quota in public sector

undertakings, government services, and other government

departments. Thus, SSCOs receive ample security and support once

they are released from service.

C. ISSUES

8. In light of the foregoing factual narrative and the competing claims

advanced before us, the controversy in these appeals narrows down to

the following issues:

i. Whether the ACRs of the Appellants were graded casually without

adjudging their suitability for promotion and thus, adversely

impacted their inter se merit?

ii. Whether the ‘Dynamic Vacancy Model’ created for the conduct of the

Selection Board in December 2020 is arbitrary and violates the

directions given in Annie Nagaraja (supra)?

iii. Whether the Respondents erred in not disclosing the evaluation

criteria and available vacancies prior to the conduct of the Selection

Board in December 2020?

D. ANALYSIS D.1 Issue No. 1: Alleged Casual Grading of the Appellants’ ACRs

9. At the threshold, it is necessary to delineate the scope of this issue.

Broadly, the Appellants before us fall into two categories: male officers

Page 27 of 49 and female officers. From the inception of women’s recruitment in the

Navy in 1991, SSCWOs were excluded from consideration for PC,

notwithstanding the assurance in the communication dated 20.12.1991

that a policy to that effect would be promulgated in 1997. Though

SSCWOs were finally made eligible for PC by the letter dated 26.09.2008,

such eligibility was confined to only three branches/cadres—Law,

Education, and Naval Architecture—and was further restricted to officers

inducted after January 2009. The cumulative effect of these policy

decisions was that, although women had been part of the officer cadre of

the Navy since 1991, and their entry into all branches/cadres was

opened up in 1998, they remained, as a class, ineligible for consideration

for PC until 2009. Even thereafter, eligibility was extended only to a

subset of women officers, leaving those in other branches/cadres outside

the zone of consideration as a matter of policy.

10. The position of male SSCOs is more nuanced. While male SSCOs, as a

class, were never rendered ineligible for PC, officers serving in certain

branches/cadres, i.e., predominantly non-technical branches, were, by

the terms of their initial entry and prevailing policies, not eligible for PC

until 2008. Consequently, a segment of male SSCOs stood on a footing

substantially similar to that of the SSCWOs, in that they too had no real

prospect of career progression during the relevant period of their service.

11. The Appellants, both male and female SSCOs, contend that ACRs were

casually graded for officers who were ineligible for PC as a matter of

practice. Resultantly, when they were eventually considered for PC

Page 28 of 49 pursuant to judicial intervention in Annie Nagaraja (supra), their

evaluation was burdened by years of middling grades and negative

endorsements that were never intended to assess long-term suitability.

The Respondents, in contrast, assert that the appraisal process has

always been objective and gender-neutral, and that the Appellants were

denied PC solely on account of their low inter se merit.

12. To assess these rival positions, it is necessary to appreciate the role and

significance of ACRs within the service framework of the Navy. ACRs

constitute the foundational instrument through which an officer’s

professional competence, employability, and long-term potential are

assessed within the Navy. Accordingly, while being records of past

performance, they are also intended to serve as evaluative tools that

inform future decisions relating to career advancement, retention, and

progression. In a pyramidal force structure such as the Navy’s, ACRs

thus play a determinative role in identifying officers suitable for

sustained service and higher responsibility.

13. Against this backdrop, it becomes evident that where officers were

understood to have no avenue for PC, and where IOs/COs were

conscious that such officers would serve only for a finite tenure, the

appraisal process was inevitably affected at its inception. Under a bell-

curve-based system of assessment, which is designed to generate relative

merit among officers of the same seniority, higher gradings tend to be

reserved for those perceived to have a future in the service, as such

gradings are instrumental in identifying suitability for promotion.

Page 29 of 49 Officers who lacked eligibility for long-term progression were, therefore,

routinely awarded average or middling grades, not on account of inferior

performance, but because higher grading was perceived to serve no

institutional purpose. This practice has assumed decisive significance in

the present case, as ACRs accounted for 90% of the marks in the

Selection Board convened in December 2020, rendering such historical

gradings determinative of inter se merit.

14. An additional and closely allied source of prejudice arose from the

manner in which endorsements regarding recommendations for PC were

recorded in the ACRs of the Appellants. Following the introduction of

formal endorsements for PC in October 2009, IOs/COs were required to

record one of two endorsements, either “Recommended for PC” or “Not

Recommended for PC,” reflecting their assessment of the officer’s

suitability for PC during the period under review. In respect of officers

who were, as a matter of policy, wholly ineligible for consideration for PC,

this column was routinely marked as “Not Recommended for PC,” again,

not as an evaluative conclusion drawn from performance, but as a

mechanical consequence of their ineligibility. Such endorsements came

to signify the prevailing policy positions rather than

professional appraisal.

15. The long-term consequences of these endorsements became apparent

only when, owing to the directions issued by this Court in Annie

Nagaraja (supra), the Appellants were suddenly rendered eligible for

consideration for PC. Under the Approach Paper governing the Selection

Page 30 of 49 Board convened in December 2020, an officer who had been marked “Not

Recommended for PC” on three or more occasions in the last five ACR

cycles stood disentitled from being granted PC. These endorsements,

though originally recorded when the respective officer was ineligible for

PC as a matter of policy, were later converted into substantive

disqualifications from the grant of PC, even once the officer had become

eligible to be considered for the same.

16. In effect, the institutional assumption that these officers had no future

in the Navy was embedded in their service records and later invoked

against them at the decisive stage of consideration. A 3-Judge Bench of

this Court, having the same composition, has in a judgement of even date

titled, Lt. Col. Pooja Pal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,10 dealt

with identical issues pertaining to the grant of PC to SSCWOs in the

Army. Building upon the principles recognised in Nitisha (supra), our

judgement of even date has held that when officers are assessed under

the prevailing assumption that they have no future in the service, the

appraisal process is inevitably affected from its very inception. Much like

their Army counterparts, the Appellants, too, have faced casual ACR

gradings and endorsements authored during the period in which they

were understood to be ineligible for PC and destined, at best, to serve

only until the maximum permissible tenure for SSCOs. In such a context,

the exercise of evaluating long-term potential for sustained service

became largely otiose, and the absence of a career horizon inevitably

10 Civil Appeal No(s). 9747 – 9757/2024.

Page 31 of 49 influenced the manner in which relative merit was perceived and

recorded. We are of the considered opinion that the reasoning adopted in

the even-dated decision applies with equal force to the instant case, as

the Appellants before us are similarly placed to the Appellants therein.

17. As a consequence, since the Appellants were graded in an environment

where their suitability for PC was never meaningfully evaluated, the

assessment of inter se merit is held to have been materially distorted.

We, therefore, conclude that this circularity, where past ineligibility was

belatedly transformed into ‘deemed unsuitability’ for career progression,

has resulted in an uneven playing field for the Appellants.

D.2 Issue No. 2: The Arbitrariness of the ‘Dynamic Vacancy Model’

Created for the Selection Board of December 2020

18. Quite apart from their challenge to the grading of ACRs, the Appellants

have also assailed the legality and fairness of the Dynamic Vacancy

Model adopted by the Respondents to determine the number of vacancies

made available for the grant of PC pursuant to the Selection Board

convened in December 2020. It is contended that this model has no

provenance in any pre-existing policy or settled practice, and that its

application resulted in an unduly restrictive and arbitrary allocation of

vacancies across branches/cadres, to the detriment of the Appellants.

19. The Respondents, on the other hand, have justified the adoption of this

model by pointing to the exceptional situation that arose in the aftermath

of the decision in Annie Nagaraja (supra). By virtue of that judgement,

Page 32 of 49 multiple batches of SSCOs, who had been denied consideration for PC

solely on account of the prospective operation of the policy dated

26.09.2008, were required to be considered together. The Dynamic

Vacancy Model was thus devised as a one-time mechanism to distribute

available vacancies across several batches, while simultaneously

preserving cadre balance and operational viability within the Navy.

20. It is true that the AFT had, in its earlier decision in Lt. Cdr. Tarun

(supra), considered and approved the validity of the Dynamic Vacancy

Model. However, that judgement was subsequently set aside by this

Court in Amit Kumar Sharma (supra), and the matter was remanded

to the AFT for fresh consideration. Despite this, in the Impugned

Judgement rendered after remand, the AFT did not meaningfully engage

with the Appellants’ specific challenges to the manner in which vacancies

were computed and apportioned under the Dynamic Vacancy Model.

21. Be that as it may, given that the Appellants have already undergone

multiple rounds of litigation in pursuit of PC, and that the controversy

raised in this issue is purely one of law, we consider it appropriate to

examine the merits of the challenge to the Dynamic Vacancy

Model ourselves.

D.2.1 The Computation of Vacancies and the ‘Dynamic Vacancy Model’

22. The grant of PC to SSCOs is governed by Regulation 203 of the 1963

Regulations, which stipulates that PC may be granted “subject to the

availability of vacancies in the stabilized cadre of the Navy.” The

Page 33 of 49 ‘stabilised cadre’ refers to the permanent strength of any branch/cadre,

as per the stabilised positions sanctioned by the Government as well as

the Training Draft and Leave Relief (TDLR) positions, which account for

personnel temporarily unavailable due to training, postings, or leave.

Ordinarily, this would mean that, in a given year, consideration for PC

would be tied to the deficiency in sanctioned permanent posts within a

particular branch/cadre at the relevant time.

23. In the normal course, SSCOs are considered for PC in their 6th year of

service, being the First Look, and again in their 7th year of service, being

the Second Look. These two years are commonly understood as

constituting the officer’s ‘material time’ for consideration. It follows that

vacancies for PC are assessed with reference to the cadre position

prevailing when the SSCOs are being considered for the same, i.e. in their

‘material time’.

24. However, pursuant to the directions of this Court in Annie Nagaraja

(supra), a large number of officers across multiple batches came to be

considered together by a Selection Board convened in December 2020.

In respect of these officers, the Respondents treated the year 2020 as the

‘material time’ for the purpose of assessing vacancy availability under

Regulation 203.

25. To operationalize this exercise, the Navy formulated an Approach Paper

setting out the methodology for computing vacancies and evaluating inter

se merit. The Approach Paper expressly acknowledged that it was

Page 34 of 49 intended as a one-time measure, crafted to address the anomalous

situation of simultaneously considering as many as 24 batches of SSCOs

for PC, while maintaining the Navy’s pyramidal structure and

operational readiness.

26. Insofar as vacancy computation was concerned, the Approach Paper

introduced what has been described as the Dynamic Vacancy Model.

Under this framework, the total deficiency in the stabilised cadre of each

branch/cadre was first determined by applying the ideal PC-SSC ratio to

the total strength of the cadre, then subtracting the number of officers

already holding PC. The Respondents have stated that, with a view to

maximize the vacancies available for consideration, deficiencies in

temporary sanction posts and TDLR were also factored into

this computation.

27. The resultant deficiency was thereafter divided by 15 and distributed

across batches in a dynamic manner. Unlike a static allocation, the

number of vacancies available to each batch varied depending on the

number of vacancies already filled in preceding rounds. Thus, while the

first round involved dividing the total deficiency by 15, subsequent

rounds recalibrated the divisor by reducing the deficiency to account for

vacancies already allotted. To explicate, let us take the example of the

Dynamic Vacancy Model applied by the Respondents to the SSCOs in the

Executive-Logistics cadre:

Page 35 of 49

Round Batch No of officers Deficiency Vacancy Resultant Deficiency (A = C of (B = A/15) for Next previous Round round) (C = A – B)

1 1995/ 01 (First look) 27 2 25 2001 01 (First look)

2 1995/ 01 (Sec look) 25 2 23 2001/ 01 (Sec look) 2002 05 (First look)

3 2002/ 05 (Sec look) 23 2 21 2003 05 (First look)

4 2003/ 05 (Sec look) 21 2 19 2004 04 (First look)

5 2004/ 04 (Sec look) 19 2 17 2005 05 (First look)

6 2005/ 05 (Sec look) 17 2 15 2006 07 (First look)

7 2006/ 07 (Sec look) 15 1 14 2007 08 (First look)

8 2007/ 08 (Sec look) 14 1 13 2008 12 (First look)

9 2008/ 12 (Sec look) 13 1 12 2009 06 (First look)

10 2009/ 06 (Sec look) 12 1 11 2010 16 (First look)

11 2010/ 06 (Sec look) 11 1 10 2011 35 (First look)

12 2011/ 35 (Sec look) 10 1 9 2012 04 (First look)

13 2012/ 04 (Sec look) 9 1 8 2013 30 (First look)

Total 14 139 Officers 19 Batches

28. As may be seen from the above illustration, the deficiency diminishes

with each successive round as vacancies are allotted. At the same time,

this method does not result in the exhaustion of the entire deficiency. In

Page 36 of 49 the Executive–Logistics cadre, for instance, out of an initial deficiency of

27, only 19 vacancies were ultimately allocated across 13 batches.

29. The above table also demonstrates that each batch was afforded both a

First Look and a Second Look. Owing to the peculiar circumstances of

this case, however, both Looks were conducted within the same Selection

Board and the same calendar year. Nevertheless, each batch was

assessed alongside a senior batch in the First Look and a junior batch in

the Second Look, save for the earliest batch.

D.2.2 Grievances of the Appellants-SSCOs

30. Having outlined the mechanics of the Dynamic Vacancy Model, we now

turn to the three principal objections raised by the Appellants to its

adoption and implementation.

D.2.2.1 Deficiency wrongly computed as in 2020

31. The Appellants have contended that, under Annie Nagaraja (supra),

vacancies ought to have been assessed with reference to their 6th and 7th

years of service, rather than with reference to the cadre position in 2020.

This submission proceeds on the premise that the concept of ‘material

time’ must remain fixed, irrespective of the exceptional circumstances in

which consideration was eventually undertaken.

32. As discussed previously, this Court, in Annie Nagaraja (supra), directed

that the Selection Board consider the officers for the grant of PC as per

Regulation 203. This would involve the determination of vacancies at the

‘material time’. We have already observed that for the Appellants, who

Page 37 of 49 were considered for the grant of PC by the Selection Board in December

2020, the ‘material time’ arose in 2020.

33. The relevance of ‘material time’ lies in its nexus with the availability of

vacancies capable of being filled when officers are actually considered for

PC. A historical deficiency that may have existed a decade earlier bears

no rational connection to the cadre position prevailing at the time of

actual consideration. In the instant case, the Selection Board was

convened in December 2020 pursuant to judicial directions, and it was

only at that point that vacancies could realistically be filled. The

Respondents were therefore justified in treating 2020 as the relevant

material time. On this count, thus, we find no infirmity with the actions

of the Respondents.

34. Before moving to the next grievance, we may also allude to another

argument made by some of the Appellants in relation to the material time

being set in 2020. They contended that the framework implemented by

the Respondents has unfairly resulted in them being considered on the

basis of the same ACRs in their First Look as well as their Second Look.

While this is factually correct, it is an inevitable consequence of the

extraordinary situation created by delayed consideration across multiple

batches. Importantly, the distinction between the two Looks was

preserved through comparison with different adjacent batches. In these

circumstances, we see no arbitrariness in relying on the most recent

ACRs available, nor do we find any violation of fairness warranting

interference.

Page 38 of 49 D.2.2.2 Arbitrary division of the deficiency by 15

35. The Appellants have further argued that the division of the deficiency by

15 was arbitrary and engineered to artificially suppress the number of

vacancies available for selection. The Respondents have, however,

explained the basis of this methodology before the AFT, contending

that vacancies for PC are always determined after taking

a long-term perspective.

36. This is necessitated due to the fact that, upon being granted PC, the

officer would continue to serve the Navy for at least 30 years, as

compared to the maximum tenure of 14 years as an SSCO. This

additional 15-16 years of service has an impact on the age composition

and the overall agility of the forces, especially given the lean sanctioned

strength of the Navy. The rationale advanced is that distributing

vacancies over a fifteen-year horizon ensures a balanced age and

experience profile within the officer cadre and prevents sudden

distortions in the pyramidal structure of the Navy. This distribution is

reflected in the division of the remaining deficiency by 15, before the

vacancy is allotted for a particular round of selection.

37. We find strength in the submission of the Respondents. Taking the long-

term requirements of the Navy as a lean military wing into account, a

policy of distribution of vacancies across the present and future rounds

of selection cannot be termed as an arbitrary exercise per se. That being

so, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in the policy

Page 39 of 49 decision when the means adopted bear a reasonable connection to the

stated objective.

38. The specific challenge to the choice of the number ‘15’ as the divisor also

fails to persuade us. Far from being an arbitrary figure, it corresponds to

the approximate years of service that accompany the grant of PC. Thus,

in our considered view, the selection of this divisor is anchored in service

realities rather than caprice.

D.2.2.3 Non-exhaustion of all vacancies

39. Lastly, the Appellants are also aggrieved by the fact that,

notwithstanding the existence of a substantial deficiency in certain

cadres, the Respondents failed to create and utilise all available

vacancies, thereby denying PC to otherwise eligible officers such as the

Appellants.

40. The Respondents have submitted before the AFT that limiting vacancies

despite the existence of a larger deficiency is based on a multitude of

policy considerations, from maintaining readiness for exigencies to

ensuring adequate vacancies for the future batches.

41. In our considered opinion, this issue is no longer res integra. It is well

settled, including through a judgement of a Constitution Bench of this

Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India,11 that a candidate does

not have a right to be selected merely due to the existence of vacancy. It

is open for the Competent Authority, for policy reasons, to leave such

11 (1991) 3 SCC 47.

Page 40 of 49 vacancies unfilled as are required, as long as such action is not plagued

with the vice of arbitrariness, does not aim to undermine the merit of the

candidates, or is not otherwise illegal.

42. We find that the above-stated principle is squarely applicable in the

instant case, given that the Navy has, for well-explained reasons, chosen

not to exhaust all the available vacancies instantaneously. Owing to this,

we cannot fault the Respondents’ decision to leave certain vacancies

empty for future batches.

43. To reiterate, this Court finds that the modalities of conducting the 2020

Selection Board by the Respondents, with respect to the creation and

distribution of vacancies, in compliance with Annie Nagaraja (supra),

did not suffer from any infirmity of arbitrariness or discrimination. The

decisions of the Navy regarding such a one-time exercise were guided by

the terms of the said judgement, the extraordinary circumstances of the

Selection Board, and demonstrable rationality. As such, there is no case

made out for us to interfere with the same.

D.3 Issue No. 3: Non-disclosure of Evaluation Criteria and Available Vacancies Prior to the Conduct of the Selection Board

44. Apart from the issues discussed above, the Appellants have also drawn

our attention to a fundamental procedural deficiency that permeated the

conduct of the Selection Boards held in December 2020 and September

2022, namely, the absence of any prior disclosure of the evaluation

framework governing the process and the number of vacancies available.

Unlike the Army and the Air Force, where the governing policies, vacancy

Page 41 of 49 computation methodologies, and assessment criteria were formally

promulgated, the Navy did not place any document in the public domain

outlining the approved method of determining vacancies, the parameters

of evaluation, the moderative mechanisms employed (if any), or the

manner in which merit lists were to be prepared. According to the

Appellants, this opacity left officers aspiring for PC unaware of the

standards against which they would be judged, thereby depriving them

of a fair opportunity to address potential deficiencies in their

service records.

45. The practical consequences of this non-disclosure, it is urged, were far

from theoretical. The Appellants contend that they were never informed

that their ACRs from the preceding five years would serve as the exclusive

basis for evaluation. As a result, they did not seek redressal of adverse

remarks or omissions therein within time. Equally, they remained

unaware of whether, and if so how, the Respondents had sought to

mitigate the structural deficiencies inherent in the ACR regime, which

we have already adverted to while examining the first issue. Requiring

the officers to participate in the process for the grant of PC without

disclosing the material particulars of the selection procedure was akin to

asking them to navigate uncharted waters without a compass.

46. This submission of the Appellants has carried force in the previous round

of litigation before this Court. In Amit Kumar Sharma (supra), this

Court took serious exception to the Respondents’ failure to disclose the

material governing the selection process. At that stage, the AFT had

Page 42 of 49 adjudicated the matter in Lt. Cdr. Tarun (supra) on the basis of

documents furnished to it in a sealed cover, without any corresponding

disclosure to the affected SSCOs. The Appellants had neither been

supplied the instructions issued to reporting officers and Selection

Boards, nor made privy to the rationale underlying the methodology

adopted by the Respondents. This Court found such a procedure to be

fundamentally flawed and, on that ground, remanded the matter to the

AFT for fresh consideration.

47. Upon remand, the AFT, vide the Impugned Judgement, has accorded

necessary impetus to this concern raised by the Appellants. It recognised

that the absence of such information being disclosed to the assessee

officers not only handicapped the Appellants in their attempts to litigate

against the validity and results of the Selection Board, but it vitiated the

selection process itself. It may be apposite to reproduce the relevant

extract thereof below:

“62. An analysis of the cases adjudicated by the AFT (PB) as given at Para 55 above, indicate that consequent to the judicial orders and consideration of the affected SSCOs, all three Services obtained requisite Govt. Sanction for implementing the judicial orders. In the case of the IAF, they issued a HRP defining the criteria and details of consideration. In the case of the IA, they obtained sanction for additional vacancies and issued the General Instruction for the conduct of the Special No 5 SB in which the criteria and the details of all the 615 eligible SSCOs was promulgated…

63. In the case of IN after obtaining the requisite Govt. sanction, they obtained the approval of the competent authority of an 'Approach Paper' on the modalities for the conduct of the Special Board and the environment was intimated only of the batches that were being considered. However, while they had the criteria, method for calculating vacancies, apportionment of

Page 43 of 49 vacancies to various Branches/Cadres on record duly approved, the details were not known to the SSCOs being considered, as these details were not promulgated…” [Sic] [Emphasis supplied]

48. There is, patently, a dissonance on the promulgation of policy documents

on the conduct of the Selection Boards between the Navy and the other

two wings of the Armed Forces. While the Army and the Air Force ensured

that the affected officers were informed, in advance, of the criteria and

modalities governing selection, the Navy confined such material to

internal approval processes. This asymmetry in disclosure, as correctly

noted by the AFT, undermined the transparency of the selection exercise.

This dichotomy led the AFT to direct the Respondents to hold a renewed

Special Board, after the public dissemination of the relevant material and

policy considerations.

49. It would not be out of place to record that the Appellants, on this issue,

are not necessarily aggrieved by the findings forwarded by the AFT. In

line with the Appellants’ arguments, the AFT has held that the selection

process in the 2020 Selection Board, as well as the 2022 Selection Board,

suffered from the infirmity of opaqueness in procedure and criteria.

50. Significantly, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on

behalf of the Respondents, has also fairly conceded that the Navy does

not propose to challenge the Impugned Judgement or its findings on this

aspect, and that the Respondents are prepared to abide by the AFT’s

directions for conducting a fresh Selection Board with full prior

disclosure, subject to the outcome of the instant appeals.

Page 44 of 49

51. In these circumstances, the failure to disclose the evaluation criteria,

vacancy computation methodology, and allied policy considerations prior

to the conduct of the Selection Boards in 2020 and 2022 must be held

to have violated basic norms of fairness and transparency. We, therefore,

find no reason to differ from the view taken by the AFT in this regard.

The conclusion that the Navy was obligated to place the relevant policy

material in the public domain, in a timely manner and before the

commencement of the selection process, merits affirmation.

E. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

52. Before concluding the judgement and passing consequential directions

to the parties before us, it is necessary to recapitulate our findings on

the various issues raised before us. They are summarised as follows:

(i) The ACRs of the Appellants, who were ineligible for PC

consideration by virtue of their terms of entry and/or the prevailing

policies at the time, were written keeping in mind their ineligibility

for PC and with the assumption that they would never undergo

any substantive career progression. This presumption undermined

the assessment of their ‘suitability’ for such progression once it

became available and thus, adversely affected their overall merit in

the consideration for PC;

(ii) The Dynamic Vacancy Model adopted by the Respondents to create

and distribute vacancies amongst the officers considered by the

Selection Board held in December 2020 was rational, non-

Page 45 of 49

arbitrary, and implemented as a one-time measure owing to the

directions issued by this Court in Annie Nagaraja (supra); and

(iii) The failure of the Respondents to disclose the evaluation criteria,

vacancy computation methodology, and allied policy

considerations prior to the conduct of the Selection Boards has

adversely impacted the officers considered in those Boards.

53. We may hasten to observe at this stage that in ordinary circumstances,

having recorded our approval for the reasoning adopted by the AFT in

respect of the non-disclosure of the selection procedure and criteria and

without taking into consideration our analysis in the first issue, we would

have upheld the decision of the AFT directing another Selection Board to

consider the Appellants cases for grant of PC. There are, however, other

factors which weigh on our conscience and prevent us from approving

the said directions forthwith.

54. The first being that the instant appeals constitute the third round of

litigation regarding the Appellants’ claim for PC before this Court. After

securing their entitlement to be considered for the grant of PC initially in

2015 and 2016, and affirmed by this Court in 2020, the Appellants were

forced to approach the Courts afresh for a fair assessment. After their

claim was initially rejected by the AFT in 2022, the Appellants again

approached this Court, which remanded the matter to the AFT for fresh

adjudication. Regardless of this, the AFT has considered it wise to direct

a fresh consideration of the Appellants by a new Special Board. This

Page 46 of 49 ordeal being faced by the aggrieved SSCOs, in our opinion, ought not to

be allowed to continue to a fourth round.

55. This is more so because of the second factor that the Appellants cannot

be expected to obtain a fair assessment in the renewed Special Board

due to the inherently skewed ACRs suffered by them, arising from being

considered ineligible for the grant of PC for almost the entirety of their

careers. Given the extensive non-consideration of any career progression

at the time of filling of ACRs of the Appellants, the result of another

consideration by a Selection Board would still not yield any equitable or

non-discriminatory result. The third factor which persuades us to finally

conclude these proceedings is that it is not in the overall interest of the

Navy and its officers to continue to indulge in a protracted litigation.

56. For the above-stated reasons, we consider it appropriate to allow these

appeals and consequently, modify the directions issued by the AFT by

way of the Impugned Judgement dated 27.09.2024, and the subsequent

Impugned Orders dated 13.02.2025 and 06.03.2025, in the

following terms:

(i) The grant of PC to the SSCOs who have already been granted PC

by the Selection Boards convened in December 2020 and

September 2022 as well as those granted relief by virtue of this

Court’s judgement in Lt. Cdr. Manish Kumar Singh (supra),

shall not be disturbed;

(ii) As a one-time measure, instead of convening a fresh Special Board

for reconsideration of the SSCOs’ cases for the grant of PC, the

Page 47 of 49 following categories of officers, who were considered for the grant

of PC by the Selection Board convened in December 2020 and are

presently still in service, shall be entitled to the grant of PC, subject

to their meeting the prescribed medical criteria and on receiving

disciplinary and vigilance clearance:

a. SSCWOs who were inducted into the Navy prior to January

2009;

b. SSCWOs who were inducted into the Navy after January 2009

in branches/cadres excluding Law, Education, and Naval

Architecture; and

c. Male SSCOs who were barred from consideration for PC as

per their initial terms of service/entry.

(iii) The Appellants and Intervenors before us, who have been released

from service during the pendency of these proceedings, whether

before the AFT, before the High Court, before this Court, or in the

interregnum, but would otherwise fall within the categories of

officers identified in sub-paragraph (ii) shall be deemed to have

completed substantive qualifying service of 20 years and shall be

entitled to pension and all consequential benefits, except arrears

of pay, on the basis that they have completed such minimum

service;

(iv) The pension shall be fixed on the basis of the date of completion of

the deemed service of 20 years, but arrears thereof, if any, shall be

paid to the SSCOs only with effect from 01.01.2025;

Page 48 of 49

(v) For all future Selection Boards, the Respondents shall issue

appropriate General Instructions, prior to the conduct of such

Board, laying down: the vacancies available in each branch/cadre

for each batch; the detailed criteria for evaluation along with the

apportionment of marks for each criterion; and any other

information that may be necessary to supply to the officers under

consideration for that purpose, in line with the direction contained

in Paragraph 66(b) of the Impugned Judgement dated 27.09.2024;

and

(vi) The Respondents shall undertake the policy examination directed

by the AFT in Paragraph 66(e) of the Impugned Judgement dated

27.09.2024 forthwith.

57. Ordered accordingly.

58. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of in the above terms.

............…….........CJI (SURYA KANT)

..............…….........J. (UJJAL BHUYAN)

………………………...............…….........J. (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 24, 2026

Page 49 of 49