Distinction Between Male & Female Reduced To Nothing More Than A Chance Chromosomal Circumstance: Delhi HC Allows Woman IAF Candidate’s Petition

The High Court held that 90 vacancies, which were not earmarked for female candidates, were open to all candidates, female as well as male.

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Arshnoor Kaur v UOI (2025), the Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, “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.

Advocate Sahil Mongia represented the Petitioner, while ASG Chetan Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

On May 17, 2023, the Union Public Service Commission issued an Examination Notice for conducting the National Defence Academy and Naval Academy Examination (NDA Examination) for recruitment to various posts in the Armed Forces. The post pertained to the Air Force (i) Flying for which the notification notified the number of vacancies as 92 (including 2 for female candidates). The petitioner applied for undertaking the NDA. The results of the written examination were announced, and the petitioner’s name figured in the results, thereby confirming that she had passed the written examination. The Ministry of Defence issued a merit list of 699 candidates who had qualified for recruitment based on the NDA, following the written examination and interview.

Two vacancies earmarked for female candidates were filled, and of the 90 remaining vacancies, only 70 were filled by male candidates, thereby leaving 20 vacancies unfilled. The petitioner was 7th in the merit list of women candidates after the two candidates who had been appointed against the two earmarked vacancies. One of the requirements for being eligible for appointment to the post of “Air Force (i) Flying” was a “Fit to Fly” certificate. The petitioner was admittedly in possession of such a certificate, issued by the Appeal Medical Board. The Petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that 20 of the 90 vacancies not earmarked for female candidates remained vacant, and the Petitioner was not offered an appointment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court for a direction to the respondents to fill up the 20 unfilled vacancies out of the 90 vacancies which were not earmarked for female candidates and, in the process, appoint the petitioner.

Reasoning

As per the Bench, the construction placed by the respondents on the stipulation in the Examination Notice, regarding the 90 vacancies not being earmarked for female candidates was untenable. “The Notice did not state that 90 vacancies were reserved for male candidates and two were reserved for female candidates. Indeed, were it to so state, the stipulation might have been vulnerable to challenge on the ground of being gender skewed”, it said.

The Bench was unimpressed by the argument that there were parallel modes of selection such as AFCAT and CDSE, also being followed for recruitment to the IAF. The Bench was of the view that if the petitioner is entitled to be recruited under the said Examination Notice, the relief cannot be denied to her on the ground that, even if she does not qualify through the NDA, she may qualify through some other mode. The Bench also held, “There being no dispute about the fact that 20 of the 90 vacancies which were not earmarked for female candidates are remaining unfilled, and the petitioner being 7th in the merit list of women candidates after the two candidates who had been selected against the two earmarked vacancies, there is no basis whatsoever not to appoint petitioner against one of the remaining 20 vacancies.”

The Bench thus held that the 90 vacancies notified by the Notification issued by the UPSC, apart from the 2 vacancies earmarked for female candidates, could not be regarded as earmarked for male candidates. These vacancies were open to female as well as male candidates. 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.

Considering the fact that there were eligible female candidates who had cleared the examination, the Bench noted that the respondents were not justified in keeping 20 vacancies unfilled. They were required to fill up the said 20 vacancies from the female candidates who were lower in merit, to the two candidates who had been selected against the two earmarked vacancies. The Petitioner being 7th in the said merit list, was entitled to be appointed against one of the 20 unfilled vacancies.

The Bench directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner against one of the unfilled 20 Air Force (i) Flying vacancies relating to the Examination Notification. “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 Bench concluded while allowing the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Ms. Archana v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7460-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Sahil Mongia, Yash Yadav, Sanjana Samor

Respondent: ASG Chetan Sharma, CGSC Rohan Jaitley, Advocates Dev Pratap Shahi, Varun Pratap Singh, Yogya Bhatia, Amit Gupta, Naman Shubham Sharma, Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar Singh, Vasu Agarwal

Click here to read/download Order