Army seeks clarification from SC over women officers

WOMEN OFFICERS HAVE CLAIMED THE FINDING OF THE SELECTION BOARD IS ‘AMBIGUOUS’ AND ‘REEKS OF VENDETTA’

NEW DELHI: The Indian Army has sought a clarification from the Supreme Court on the grant of permanent commission to women short service commission officers (WSSCO) pointing out that around 14% of them failed one criteria for this -- and whether an apex court ruling of March meant permanent commissions had to be granted irrespective of the criteria being met.

The issue involves 72 of 514 women short service commission officers (WSSCO). The Selection Board that considered their case in September 2020 found serious charges of indiscipline, forgery, disobedience and unbecoming conduct as an officer -- and on this basis denied them permanent commission.

Under a Supreme Court order of March 25, 2021, Army was directed to positively grant perernment manent commission to all such women short service commission officers (WSSCO) who obtained 60 per cent marks, subject to disciplinary and vigilance clearance. In all, 514 women officers met this rule, of which 442 were declared “fit” for permanent commission (PC) and 72 declared “unfit”.

The charges against the 72 officers are serious and have been disclosed for the first time by the army despite the findings being available when the top court decided the case in March. These include “discipline, disobedience of orders, lapses in govprocurement, forging medical documents, poor work ethics, lack of professionalism, un-officer like conduct, poor performance in courses, etc.”

As per the army policy, laid out on September 30, 1983 and February 24, 2012, short service commission officers have to fulfil the twin criteria of minimum cut-off grade of 60% in the assessment and a “fit” declaration by the Selection Board. In the past, this rule has been uniformly applied to all short service commission officers.

As the SC order of March 25 comes in the way of the army rejecting them, Colonel Sachidananda Prabhu, the Colonel Military Secretary (Legal) of the Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) has filed an application in the top court seeking clarification.

The application said: “To avoid any ambiguity and misinterpretation, the Applicants seek clarification as to whether the 72 women officers who have scored 60% grade but are graded “unfit” for grant of Permanent Commission by the Selection Board are eligible for grant of Permanent Commission.”

The March judgment of the court said: “All women officers who have fulfilled the cut-off grade of 60 per cent in the Special No 5 Selection Board held in September 2020 shall be entitled to the grant of PC, subject to their meeting the medical criteria prescribed by the General Instructions dated 1 August 2020 and receiving disciplinary and vigilance clearance.” The court also set a three-month deadline to complete this exercise. In its application the army has cited the pandemic and also sought additional time off two months to comply with the judgment.

Women officers have claimed the finding of the Selection Board to be “ambiguous” and one that “reeks of vendetta”. In their reply to the army’s application filed on Wednesday, they said: “Charges like lapses in government procurement and forging medical documents are grave offences for which an officer faces inquiry and may be dismissed from service.” The officers found it strange that none of them were warned by the army for committing such grave offences. “This is highly misplaced, and it gives an impression of another well framed excuse by respondents for not granting PC to Women Officers on a very untenable ground,” the lady officers said.

Interestingly, the army application also seeks to repair the damage caused by the Supreme Court in accusing the Army of gender discrimination. It has urged the top court to expunge remarks of “systemic discrimination” against WSSCOS from its March 25 judgment.