The Delhi High Court criticised the government for not filling 20 Indian Air Force posts despite eligible women clearing the NDA exam. The Court ruled that unreserved seats must be open to both men and women and ordered immediate appointment of a woman candidate.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised the Central Government for keeping 20 posts in the Indian Air Force (IAF) vacant, even though qualified women had cleared the National Defence Academy (NDA) exam.
A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla ruled that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) notification for NDA II 2023 cannot be read in a way that 90 out of 92 posts in the Air Force ‘Flying’ branch were reserved for men.
The Court said that both male and female candidates had equal right to apply for those seats.
“The 90 vacancies notified by the Notification dated 17 May 2023 issued by the UPSC, apart from the 2 vacancies earmarked for female candidates, cannot be regarded as earmarked for male candidates. They were vacancies which were open to female as well as male candidates. In other words, out of a total number of 92 vacancies, 2 vacancies were earmarked for female candidates. The remaining vacancies were not earmarked either for female or male candidates but were open to everyone,”
-the Court said in its order on August 25.
The Court explained that the only requirement for the 90 unreserved seats was that the candidate must have a valid “fit to fly” certificate.
Since 20 of those seats remained unfilled, the Court directed the government to immediately appoint Archana, a woman who was seventh in the women’s merit list.
“Resultantly, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner, forthwith, against one of the unfilled 20 Air Force (i) Flying vacancies relating to the Examination Notification dated 17 May 2023. She would be entitled to be treated at par, for all service benefits including seniority and other associated benefits, with the 70 male and 2 female candidates who have been selected and appointed,”
-the Court ordered.
Archana had approached the High Court asking for appointment to one of the vacant seats. Her counsel argued that since no male candidates qualified, 20 of the unreserved posts were still vacant, and therefore the government should fill them with eligible women candidates.
It was also argued that because Archana ranked seventh in the women’s merit list after the two women who had already been appointed, she should rightfully get the seat.
The Court strongly agreed and stressed that gender discrimination has no place in today’s armed forces.
“We are, mercifully, no longer in those times in which discrimination could be made between male and female candidates so far as entry into the Armed Forces – or, for that matter, anywhere else – is concerned,”
-the Court underlined.
The Bench further highlighted that while the armed forces can decide on necessary qualifications and requirements, once those are fixed, all candidates who meet them must be treated equally, without bias.
“In the light of the law as it has developed from the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court on the aspect of gender neutrality, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret or administer any stipulation, advertisement or notification in a manner which would be gender skewed. The distinction between male and female has, in the present time, been reduced to nothing more than a chance chromosomal circumstance, and ascribing, to it, any greater relevance would be illogical as well as anachronistic. It is time, to adopt a somewhat pedestrian adage, that one woke up and smelt the coffee,”
-the Court held.
EXPLANATORY LEGAL TABLE (Laws & Sections in This Case)
| Law / Source | Relevant Section / Principle | Explanation in Simple Words | How It Applied in This Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitution of India – Article 14 | Right to Equality | Guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the laws. | Court said women candidates cannot be denied unreserved Air Force seats just because they are women. |
| Constitution of India – Article 15(1) | Prohibition of Discrimination | State cannot discriminate against citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. | The decision to keep 20 posts vacant instead of giving them to eligible women was seen as gender discrimination. |
| Supreme Court Precedents on Gender Neutrality | Case Law | SC has repeatedly held that women cannot be excluded from armed forces opportunities on the basis of gender. | High Court relied on these rulings to say that seats open to all must include both men and women equally. |
| UPSC NDA II Notification (17 May 2023) | Recruitment Rules | Notification had 92 Air Force Flying posts – 2 marked for women, rest (90) unreserved. | Govt wrongly treated 90 seats as “for men only”. HC clarified they were open for both men and women. |
| Medical Fitness Requirement | “Fit to Fly” Certificate | Candidates must pass medical standards to qualify as pilots. | Court noted this was the only requirement for the 90 unreserved seats – not gender. |
| Delhi High Court Judgment (25 August 2023) | Judicial Interpretation | Courts can strike down discriminatory practices even if not explicitly stated in law. | Ordered immediate appointment of Archana (7th in women’s merit list) to one of the 20 vacant posts. |
- On the petitioner’s side, advocates Sahil Mongia, Yash Yadav and Sanjana Samor appeared for Archana.
- Representing the Union of India were Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel Rohan Jaitley, along with advocates Dev Pratap Shahi, Varun Pratap Singh, Yogya Bhatia, Amit Gupta, Naman and Shubham Sharma.
- Another respondent was represented by advocates Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar Singh and Vasu Agarwal.
CASE TITLE:
Ms Archana v Union of India & Ors.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on IAF
Click Here to Read Our Reports on NDA
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
