Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Arshnoor Kaur vs Union Of India on 4 August, 2023

Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Pankaj Mithal

     ITEM NO.25                                    COURT NO.9                         SECTION X

                                     S U P R E M E C O U R T O F                  I N D I A
                                             RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                                    Writ Petition(s)(Civil)              No(s).   772/2023

     ARSHNOOR KAUR & ANR.                                                                Petitioner(s)

                                                                VERSUS

     UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                                               Respondent(s)

     (IA No. 145081/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
     IA No. 145080/2023 - STAY APPLICATION)

     Date : 04-08-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

     For Petitioner(s)                     Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.
                                           Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR
                                           Ms. Radhika Narula, Adv.
                                           Ms. Divya Singh Pundir, Adv.
                                           Ms. Suvangana Agarwal, Adv.
                                           Mr. Rishabh Lekhi, Adv.
                                           Ms. Tanya Singh, Adv.
                                           Mr. Devesh Mohan, Adv.
                                           Ms. Anushna Satapathy, Adv.
                                           Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Adv.
                                           Ms. Anjali Goyal, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)

                                 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                                                          O R D E R

Heard Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.

The senior counsel would refer to the notification dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure P/3) for the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Entry Scheme 31st Course, inviting applications from Law Graduates Signature Not Verified (Men and Women).

NITIN TALREJA Date: 2023.08.05

The grievance raised here is to the effect that 12:49:26 IST Reason:

six of the vacancies are earmarked for men whereas only three vacancies are earmarked for women.

1  The senior counsel would submit that the recruitment is to be made through a common selection process and the selectees are required to undergo common training of 49 weeks at the Officers Training Academy (OTA). Yet double the number of vacancies are earmarked for male candidates which is discriminatory. The senior counsel would then refer to the merit list to point out that the two petitioners before us had secured rank 5 and 4 respectively but by virtue of the larger vacancies earmarked for the male candidates, despite the better merit, these two meritorious ladies will be deprived of their entitlement for appointment as JAG officer in the Judge Advocate General Branch.

Justifying the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the counsel would advert to other cases pertaining to the Armed Forces where this Court had entertained cases pertaining to gender inequality in the Armed Forces particularly in the matter of recruitment.

Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.

Considering the nature of the interim relief, we deem it appropriate to order to keep aside two of the notified vacancies, until the returnable date.

(NITIN TALREJA)                                                    (KAMLESH RAWAT)
COURT MASTER (SH)                                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR




                                             2