Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla directed that the petitioner be appointed against one of the unfilled vacancies in the recruitment process for the post “Air Force (i) Flying” pursuant to the National Defence Academy and Naval Academy Examination, 2023. The court held that vacancies not specifically earmarked for female candidates were not exclusively reserved for male candidates and were therefore open to all eligible applicants. It recorded that since the petitioner had secured the requisite “Fit to Fly” certificate and had successfully cleared the written and interview stages of the examination, she was entitled to appointment against one of the 20 unfilled vacancies. The court further ordered that she be treated at par with already appointed candidates in all service matters, including seniority and associated benefits.

On 17 May 2023, the Union Public Service Commission issued Examination Notice 10/2023-NDA-II for conducting the National Defence Academy and Naval Academy Examination, 2023. The recruitment related to various posts in the Armed Forces, including the post of “Air Force (i) Flying.” The notification reflected 92 vacancies, including two earmarked for female candidates.

Also Read: Supreme Court Refers Applicability of RTE Act to Minority Institutions to Larger Bench | TET Qualification Held Mandatory for Teacher Recruitment and Promotions in Non-Minority Schools

The petitioner applied and was issued an admit card on 11 August 2023. The examination was conducted on 3 September 2023, and results were declared on 26 September 2023. Her name appeared in the list of successful candidates. Subsequently, on 2 April 2024, the Ministry of Defence published a merit list of 699 candidates who qualified for recruitment through the NDA examination, following both written and interview assessments.

It was admitted that the two vacancies earmarked for female candidates were filled. Out of the 90 vacancies not earmarked for female candidates, only 70 were filled by male candidates, leaving 20 posts vacant. The petitioner was seventh in the merit list of female candidates after the two who were appointed against the earmarked vacancies. She also held a valid “Fit to Fly” certificate issued by the Appeal Medical Board on 11 March 2024.

Aggrieved that she was not considered for appointment despite the existence of unfilled vacancies, the petitioner sought a direction requiring the respondents to fill the remaining 20 vacancies with eligible female candidates. The respondents opposed the petition.

The petitioner, represented by counsel, argued that the notification did not stipulate that the 90 vacancies were reserved for male candidates. It was submitted that both men and women were eligible for these vacancies, subject to the necessary qualifications. As only 70 male candidates were appointed, leaving 20 vacancies unfilled, it was contended that these should have been offered to eligible female candidates who had cleared the process. The petitioner, being seventh on the female merit list, was eligible for such appointment. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Arshnoor Kaur v Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1668, which addressed principles of gender neutrality in recruitment within the Armed Forces.

The respondents, represented through counsel, contended that only two vacancies were earmarked for female candidates and that the petitioner had participated in the process with full knowledge of this limitation. It was argued that additional appointments of women beyond the earmarked vacancies could affect other recruitment processes, including the Air Force Common Admission Test (AFCAT). They submitted that the 20 unfilled vacancies would not be wasted, as they could be filled through other recruitment modes such as the AFCAT or the Combined Defence Services Examination (CDSE). The respondents further contended that no challenge had been laid by the petitioner against the initial allocation of vacancies as provided in the notification. They also argued that the petitioner’s claim sought to establish gender discrimination where none existed.

The court observed that the interpretation advanced by the respondents—that 90 vacancies were reserved exclusively for male candidates—was untenable. It recorded: “The Notice does not state that 90 vacancies were reserved for male candidates and two were reserved for female candidates. Indeed, were it to so state, the stipulation might have been vulnerable to challenge on the ground of being gender skewed.”

The court further stated: “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.” It noted that once necessary stipulations and qualifications were prescribed, all candidates meeting the criteria must be treated equally.

It held that the only requirement for eligibility for the “Air Force (i) Flying” post was possession of a “Fit to Fly” certificate, which the petitioner indisputably held. The court observed: “In such circumstances, the only ground on which the petitioner could be denied appointment is if there are no vacancies available to accommodate her.”

Rejecting the respondents’ contention regarding alternative modes of recruitment such as the AFCAT or CDSE, the court stated: “We are concerned with recruitment through the NDA, and the Examination Notice dated 17 May 2023 issued in that regard. If the petitioner is entitled to be recruited under the said Examination Notice, we cannot deny relief to her on the ground that, even if she does not qualify through the NDA, she may qualify through some other mode.”

The Bench held that the stipulation in the notification—“Government strives to have a workforce which reflects gender balance and women candidates are encouraged to apply”—contradicted the respondents’ stance. It stated: “The stand canvassed by the respondents is in the teeth of the aforesaid stipulation. It discourages women candidates to apply, even though vacancies are available.”

The court considered the applicability of Arshnoor Kaur v Union of India, recording that the Supreme Court held: “Once the Army permits women officers to join any corps, department or branch forming a part of the regular Army, it cannot impose an additional restriction with regard to ‘extent of induction’ of women officers in the said corps, department or branch.” The court applied this principle, noting that similar provisions existed under the Air Force Act.

It further observed: “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.”

The Bench concluded with clear directions. It held: “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.”

It further directed: “The petitioner being in possession of a ‘fit to fly’ certificate and having cleared all rounds of examinations, was eligible for appointment.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 9 Plea for Pre-Arbitral Security Against RINL | Financial Distress Alone Not Ground Under Arbitration Act, Order 38 Rule 5 CPC Applies

The court recorded: “In view of the fact that there were eligible female candidates who had cleared the examination, the respondents were not justified in keeping 20 vacancies unfilled. They were required to fill up the said 20 vacancies from the female candidates who were lower in merit to the two candidates who had been selected against the two earmarked vacancies.”

It concluded: “Inasmuch as the petitioner is 7th in the said merit list, she is entitled to be appointed against one of the 20 unfilled vacancies.”

Finally, the Bench directed: “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.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Mongia, Mr. Yash Yadav, and Ms. Sanjana Samor, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Naman, and Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocates; Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, and Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advocates for Respondent No. 2

Case Title: Ms. Archana v Union of India and Ors

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7460-DB

Case Number: W.P.(C) 11999/2024

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla