Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner, aspiring to join the Indian Air Force as a pilot, challenging the rejection of her application for the Air Force Flying Branch despite being fit for duty and having remaining unfilled vacancies, arguing that the vacancies reserved for female candidates had already been filled. A division bench of Rekha Palli and Shalinder Kaur, JJ., held that the remaining vacancies should be reviewed to determine if they could be filled by qualified female candidates and issued a notice to the respondents to provide a detailed explanation, scheduling further hearings to ensure fairness in the recruitment process.
The petitioner, aspiring to join the Indian Air Force as a pilot, has brought a grievance before the Court concerning the recruitment process for the Air Force Flying Branch. The case centers around the National Defence Academy (NDA) and Naval Academy Examination (II), 2023, as advertised by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on 03-06-2023. This advertisement included several positions, with a specific number of vacancies allocated for female candidates in the Air Force Flying branch.
The petitioner applied for the examination in response to this advertisement and received confirmation of her application through an online portal. She was subsequently issued an E-Admit Card for the examination scheduled on 03-09-2023. Following the examination, the petitioner’s success was confirmed when the UPSC declared the written results on 26-09-2023. She also completed a Call Up Letter for NDA 152 and NA 114 Course and was declared fit for Flying/Ground Duty by the Appeal Medical Board on 11-03-2024.
Despite her successful completion of all required examinations and being declared fit, the petitioner’s application faced a setback when she was informed that she would not be considered for the Air Force Flying position due to the vacancies reserved for female candidates had already been filled.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that there were no differing eligibility conditions for male and female candidates and that any remaining unfilled vacancies should be made available to competent female candidates like herself. The petitioner sent representations to various departments, including the Chief of Air Staff, requesting an increase in the vacancies allocated to female candidates. On 24-08-2024, she received a response stating that the number of vacancies for female candidates was fixed at two and that all such positions had been filled as per the organizational requirements and cadre control mechanisms.
Counsel for the petitioner remarked that even though the petitioner had not challenged the advertisement issued by the respondents wherein a very small percentage of vacancies were reserved for female candidates in the Flying Branch, once some of the notified vacancies in the Flying Branch have remained unfilled, there is no reason as to why those vacancies cannot be filled up by commissioning competent woman like the petitioner, who has been found fit for being commissioned as a Pilot as per the rigorous tests conducted by the respondents themselves.
Thus, the Court issued a notice to the respondents, seeking a detailed explanation on why the remaining vacancies could not be filled by qualified female candidates which was thereby accepted. The Court expressed hope that the highest authority in the Indian Air Force would review the matter impartially.
[Archana v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6488, decided on 30-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Sahil Mongia, Mr. Yash Yadav, Ms. Sanjana Samor & Mr. Prateek Mehta, Counsel for petitioners;
Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Advs for UOI.
Mr.Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr.Hussain Taqvi, GP for R-1, 3, 4, 5, & 6.
Mr.Ravinder Agarwal with Mr.Lekh Raj Singh, Advs for UPSC.