New Delhi: Women officers of the Indian Army, who first litigated to get permanent absorption in the force and then promotion, are back in the Supreme Court to fight against yet another form of discrimination in the service.
Two petitions have been filed in the top court — one by officers who got promoted to Colonel-rank, and the other by those who did not get empanelled — alleging continued discrimination against women officers in the Army.
While the first set has complained about being given a “substandard appointment” on promotion, the second has claimed that their overall performance was not considered by the selection board constituted to empanel the officers for promotion.
Both have, however, raised a common grievance over the number of vacancies that were determined to give higher ranks to women officers, which was from Lt-Colonel to Colonel. They claim that 108 vacancies are a miniscule number compared to what was calculated for their male counterparts.
The two petitions were heard by a bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud Wednesday, which took a “serious view” of the manner in which promotions were being made in the Army.
The court was told by the lawyers of the petitioners that the promotion mechanism followed by the Army’s Special Selection Board was arbitrary and in violation of its March 2021 judgement that directed the Army to promote women officers.
The bench has given two weeks to the Union Ministry of Defence to submit its response and has also warned the ministry of contempt of court.
“Now, we are giving you a last opportunity to set your house in order. Otherwise, we are going to haul you up,” the SC bench said.
Also read: SC cleared way for permanent commission but women must measure up for their armed forces role
Women officers cry foul
In January this year, the Army’s Special Selection Board considered 244 women officers for promotion against 108 vacancies. These officers had been hired between 1992 and 2006 in various arms and services of the force.
The selection board sat for almost two years after the top court had ordered the Army to promote women officers who were granted permanent commissions, following the SC’s 2020 landmark verdict that ended decades of gender inequality in the armed forces.
The 2020 judgement brought women officers who joined the forces under the short service commission scheme on a par with their male counterparts. Prior to this ruling, while the male officers were given an option to apply for permanent commission after the completion of 14 years of service, women officers were left with no choice, but to retire.
In their recent petition filed in the SC, the promoted women have claimed in court that under the garb of giving command appointments to them, the Army has temporarily upgraded a post for which a junior male officer, which is a Lt-Colonel, was earlier commissioned.
Calling such an appointment “substandard”, the women officers maintained that despite being equally qualified vis-à-vis their male counterparts, in terms of mandatory courses and appointment, they have not been given “mainstream command appointment”.
While arguing their case Wednesday, advocate Archana Pathak Dave said the promoted women officers have been posted to units having a strength of less than 100-150 personnel, which were earlier commanded by male officers in the rank of either Lt-Colonel or Major.
“To add insult to injury, it has been written in the posting order that these appointments will be reverted back to a Lt-Colonel command once the women officers complete their command tenure in those appointments,” Dave told the bench, adding that the command appointments received by her clients do not befit their rank, experience and qualifications, whereas all the regular Colonel appointments have been reserved for the male officers.
“This is subjecting them to further discrimination,” the counsel submitted to the court.
Furthermore, many empanelled women officers have not yet got their new appointment as Colonel, the court was told, seeking a direction that the Army should reconsider and post such officers to regular Colonel-command units.
Another concern highlighted by the promoted women officers is that they have not been given the substantive rank of Colonel from the date it was due — which is the date when their male counterparts were promoted. According to their letters, they have received the rank on assumption of the appointment. Written enquiries for the date of their seniority have not yielded any reply till date.
Advocate Chitrangda Rathore Rastravara, who also represents the promoted women officers, told ThePrint that grant of seniority from the date of promotion and not when it was due to them would mean that her clients would not only become junior to their male coursemates, but also to male officers who are much junior to them.
“For instance, the senior-most women officer empanelled has a seniority of 1992. While she will get her seniority from January 2023, her male counterpart got it in 2011. With this anomaly, even a male officer who joined the service in 2005 and became a Colonel in January this year will become senior to her,” Rastravara explained.
‘No redressal mechanism’
According to the second set of petitioners, the Army has flouted the SC’s March 2021 judgment that directed it to consider the overall profile of eligible women officers, including their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), courses, awards, honours and special achievements, if any, for promotion.
Their advocate, Rakesh Kumar, told ThePrint that the basis of the 2021 verdict was the practice in vogue vis-à-vis the male officers. Hence, while ascertaining their criteria, the selection board should have placed its reliance on the latest ACRs of all the women officers.
However, deviating from the prevalent practise and the SC judgement, the board only took into account confidential reports prepared in the first 14 years of service rendered by the officers.
“When a 1995-batch male officer got promoted in 2012, his 2011 ACR was placed on record. However, in the case of women officers, whatever they have done after 14 years of service or their current profile has been ignored totally,” Kumar said.
This is also at variance from the career progression policy for women officers, which was drawn out in November 2021, after the SC’s 2020 verdict. The policy categorically specifies that women officers will be considered for promotion to the Colonel rank on the basis of their overall profile.
As for vacancies both petitions point out that the pro-rata vacancy (PRV) for women officers was determined in terms of the existing batch strength and not the numbers that existed when they became eligible for promotion.
“According to the PRV formula, 0.3 per cent seats are kept for vacancies. The women officers who got promoted now were due to get higher ranks after completion of their 14 years of service when their strength was more in the forces. Since the chances of progression were little in the Army, many officers quit, bringing down their numbers. Ideally, the Army should have calculated the vacancy based on the strength that existed at the time when the women officers were due for promotion,” Rastravara explained.
Further, absence of a redressal mechanism has left the women officers with no avenue where they can raise grievances against the decisions made by the promotion board.
The petitions claim that there is a redressal system for male officers where they can approach to get adverse remarks in their ACRs expunged. However, in the case of women officers, they were never told which ACRs were considered for their promotion.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also read: Superseded & forced to work under male juniors, senior women Army officers move SC