Facts: The appellants are Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) in the Indian Air Force (IAF) commissioned in 2007. At the time of their induction, a policy embargo (HRP 21/2006) suspended the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) for all officers commissioned after May 25, 2006. Consequently, for the bulk of their tenure, these officers were evaluated via Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) under the assumption that they had no long-term career horizon in the force. In 2019, the IAF introduced HRP 01/2019, which suddenly lifted the embargo and allowed these officers to compete for PC. This new policy introduced strict "Minimum Performance Criteria", including specific grades in "Categorisation" and "Mandatory In-Service Courses" (MISCs). The first Selection Board was convened in March 2019, barely two months after the policy's introduction, leading to many appellants being declared ineligible or low in merit based on retrospective evaluation of ACRs and the lack of time to meet new technical criteria.
Procedural Posture: The appellants challenged their denial of PC before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and the Delhi High Court. Both forums dismissed their pleas, holding that having participated in the selection process, the officers could not later challenge the criteria, and that they had failed to meet the prescribed merit thresholds. The matter reached the Supreme Court via a batch of Civil Appeals.
Issue: 1. Whether ACRs authored when officers were ineligible for PC can be used to fairly assess suitability for permanent absorption. 2. Whether the abrupt implementation of new eligibility criteria (MISCs/Categorisation) without a transition period was arbitrary. 3. Whether the loss of a selection chance due to pregnancy amounts to unfairness.
Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part. It held that using "casual" ACRs and the hurried implementation of the 2019 policy was arbitrary. While it did not order reinstatement to protect operational efficiency, it directed that the appellants be granted pensionary benefits as a one-time measure.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that ACRs are "conditioned by the understanding of the career trajectory" available at the time of writing. Since these reports were written when PC was barred, they were "structurally distorted" and "not oriented towards evaluating suitability for career progression". Retrospectively using them for PC was inherently unfair. Furthermore, the Court found that convening the 2019 Board in "undue haste" deprived officers of a "gestation period" to achieve mandatory qualifications like "Category C". Regarding pregnancy, the Court affirmed that "the choice to become a parent cannot be equated with an unwillingness to pursue professional advancement". Consequently, it invoked a "deemed service" fiction to grant pensionary benefits to those considered in the 2019-2021 Boards.