New Delhi, Oct 28 The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the Indian Navy Selection Board’s April 12, 2024 decision denying Permanent Commission to a woman officer of its Judge Advocate General (JAG) Branch and directed it to reconsider her claim within six weeks.
The top court held that the selection board failed to adequately account for Seema Chaudhary’s favourable Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and placed undue weight on earlier non-recommendations for Permanent Commission.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana directed the board to reconvene and reconsider the officer’s claim in accordance with the court’s directions.
The exercise must be completed within six weeks, it directed.
The bench found that the board had erred by treating the absence of recommendations for Permanent Commission by successive superior officers as an important factor in assessing her suitability, despite the overall favourable assessment of her performance in the confidential reports.
It noted that the officer had obtained the requisite grading for promotion in most of her ACRs and questioned how an officer who met the prescribed grading criteria for promotion could nevertheless be considered unsuitable for Permanent Commission.
“The overall confidential reports speak of the high performance of the officer. Such non-recommendations cannot overshadow the overall assessment reflected in those reports,” the CJI said.
The bench noted that she had received recommendations for Permanent Commission in 2013 and 2014, while the relevant recommendation columns in earlier reports from 2008 to 2012 were left blank.
Holding that the absence of an entry could not be used to the officer’s disadvantage, the bench directed that the confidential reports covering the period from July 14, 2008, to October 31, 2014, be treated as containing positive recommendations for the Permanent Commission.
The bench, however, clarified that it was not directing the authorities to consider every ACR from the officer’s entire service record.
It said the question of which reports should be considered would remain for the competent authorities to determine, subject to the directions issued by the court.
The proceedings arose from the officer’s challenge to the selection board’s decision of April 12, 2024, following an earlier judgment in a review petition of 2023.
In that judgment, the bench had directed that her claim be considered on a “standalone” basis, uninfluenced by previous consideration for Permanent Commission and observations made by the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Counsel for the officer said that the Navy had failed to comply with the direction because the selection board had again relied on previous non-recommendations while rejecting her claim.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Navy, maintained that the authorities had independently considered the officer’s case under Regulation 203 and assessed her suitability on the basis of her confidential reports.
He said the fact that successive senior officers had not recommended her for Permanent Commission over a period of five years could not simply be disregarded.
He also submitted that Permanent Commission was not an automatic entitlement merely because an officer had received extensions during her Short Service Commission tenure for commendable performance.
The bench examined the original records produced before it and identified two principal errors in the selection board’s assessment: its failure to adequately account for the requisite promotion grading obtained in most of the officer’s ACRs, and its reliance on earlier non-recommendations despite the overall assessment reflected in those reports.
