Delhi High Court raps government for keeping 20 IAF posts vacant despite qualified women

The Delhi High Court recently criticised the Central government’s decision to keep 20 posts in the Indian Air Force (IAF) vacant even though competent female candidates cleared the National Defence Academy (NDA) exams [Ms Archana v Union of India & Ors]. .A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla ruled that even though the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) notification inviting applications for the NDA II exams of 2023 says that two of the 92 Air Force ‘Flying’ posts are for women, it does not mean that the rest 90 are reserved for men. “The 90 vacancies notified by the Notification dated 17 May 2023 issued by the UPSC, apart from the 2 vacancies earmarked for female candidates, cannot be regarded as earmarked for male candidates. They were vacancies which were open to female as well as male candidates. In other words, out of a total number of 92 vacancies, 2 vacancies were earmarked for female candidates. The remaining vacancies were not earmarked either for female or male candidates but were open to everyone,” the Court held in its order of August 25. .The Court noted that the only stipulation for the 90 unreserved seats was that candidates qualifying must have a fit to fly certificate. Therefore, it ordered the Central government to appoint a woman ranked seventh in the women’s merit list to one of the 20 vacant positions.“Resultantly, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner, forthwith, against one of the unfilled 20 Air Force (i) Flying vacancies relating to the Examination Notification dated 17 May 2023. She would be entitled to be treated at par, for all service benefits including seniority and other associated benefits, with the 70 male and 2 female candidates who have been selected and appointed,” the Court ordered. .The candidate, Archana, approached the High Court seeking appointment to the posts remaining vacant. It was argued that as there was no qualified male candidate, 20 of the 90 unreserved vacancies were remaining unfilled. Hence, it is incumbent on the government to fill them by eligible women candidates, the petitioner contended.It was further argued that because the petitioner was the seventh in the merit list of women candidates after the two who had been selected against the two earmarked vacancies, she was entitled to be appointed..We are no longer in those times in which discrimination could be made between male and female candidates so far as entry into the Armed Forces is concerned.Delhi High Court.After considering the case, the Court agreed with her arguments. "We are, mercifully, no longer in those times in which discrimination could be made between male and female candidates so far as entry into the Armed Forces – or, for that matter, anywhere else – is concerned," the Court underlined.It said that while the armed forces can incorporate terms and conditions as well as qualifications and other stipulations necessary to qualify for admission, once such stipulations are prescribed, candidates fulfilling the conditions must be treated equally.“In the light of the law as it has developed from the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court on the aspect of gender neutrality, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret or administer any stipulation, advertisement or notification in a manner which would be gender skewed. The distinction between male and female has, in the present time, been reduced to nothing more than a chance chromosomal circumstance, and ascribing, to it, any greater relevance would be illogical as well as anachronistic. It is time, to adopt a somewhat pedestrian adage, that one woke up and smelt the coffee,” the Court held. .Advocates Sahil Mongia, Yash Yadav and Sanjana Samor appeared for petitioner Archana. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel Rohan Jaitley along with advocates Dev Pratap Shahi, Varun Pratap Singh, Yogya Bhatia, Amit Gupta, Naman and Shubham Sharma appeared for the Union of India. Another respondent was represented through advocates Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar Singh and Vasu Agarwal. .[Read Order]