No Cap On Women’s Induction Into Identified Corps And Services: Delhi High Court Directs Consideration Of Women Against Unfilled Vacancies In Men's Quota
The Court held that once women are permitted entry into corps and services notified under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, their numbers cannot be restricted by policy or executive instructions.
Justice C Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court directed that women candidates be considered against the 62 unfilled vacancies from the men’s quota in Short Service Commission recruitment, holding that there can be no limitation on the number of women entitled to recruitment against the corps and services already identified by the Supreme Court in Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by women candidates who cleared the Combined Defence Services Examination (CDSE) but were denied induction despite vacancies remaining unfilled.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla while adjudicating the matter, observed: “In respect of corps, departments, or streams of the Army, which stand notified under Section 12 of the Army Act as streams in which women could also be recruited, the percentage of women could not be restricted, nor could reservation for male candidates be permitted, by way of an advertisement or executive instruction.”
Advocate Indra Sen Singh appeared for the petitioners. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General, appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioners, aspiring to join the Indian Army as Short Service Commissioned Officers, cleared the CDSE examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. While all 16 vacancies earmarked for women were filled, only 107 out of 169 vacancies for men were occupied, leaving 62 unfilled.
The petitioners sought consideration against these vacancies, contending that restricting women’s induction into notified corps and services violated constitutional guarantees and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arshnoor Kaur v. Union of India.
Court’s Observations
The Delhi High Court held that the controversy stood squarely covered by Arshnoor Kaur, where the Supreme Court had held that once the Army permits women officers to join any corps or service under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, no restriction could be imposed on the extent of induction.
The Court highlighted that the Apex Court in its decision in Ashnoor Kaur had held that “for the remaining 10 streams which were limited to Combat Support Arms and Services, as the Notifications dated 30 January 1992 and 31 December 1992 issued under Section 12 of the Army Act permitted entry for women without specifying any extent of induction, there could be no constitutional restriction on the number of women who could be recruited to these corps or services.”
The Apex Court had further observed that “It stands further clarified that Section 12 of the Army Act only empowers notification of corps or services into which women could be inducted and does not thereafter permit restriction of the number of women who could be inducted there into.”
The respondents, however, argued that the directions issued in Arshnoor Kaur were limited to the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Branch and that policy restrictions based on combat preparedness and operational requirements justified the limitation on women’s induction in other services.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court observed that these particular submissions had already been advanced and rejected by the Supreme Court, which had clarified that once a corps is notified under Section 12, no executive authority could impose further restrictions.
The respondents further contended that the petitioners, having participated in the selection with knowledge of the limited vacancies, were estopped from challenging the process. The Court rejected this argument, holding that “the challenge is on the ground of invidious discrimination, and violation of constitutional principles, and is found by the Court to be substantial, the plea of estoppel by participation must be consigned to oblivion.”
The High Court, however, clarified that the petitioners' entitlement to be considered against unfilled vacancies was conditional upon their suitability for deployment in the ten corps and services identified under Section 12 of the Army Act, as in Arshnoor Kaur.
The Bench further directed that only candidates who met the prescribed age and other pre-training requirements at the time of result declaration would be eligible.
Conclusion
Allowing the petition, the Delhi High Court directed that the petitioners be considered for induction against the 62 unfilled vacancies of men, limited to the corps and services identified in Arshnoor Kaur.
Cause Title: Shruti Vyas & Ors Vs Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8222:DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate Indra Sen Singh with others.
Respondents: Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General, Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC, with others.
