‘What is sauce for goose ought to be sauce for gander’: SC grants relief to woman army officer, orders permanent commission | India News – Times of India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday granted permanent commission to a woman Army officer, pointing out that the authorities had wrongly excluded her from the consideration extended to similarly placed officers.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, delivering the verdict, highlighted the principle of fairness, stating that all soldiers, irrespective of litigation status, deserve equal treatment.
“Will it be fair to tell them that they will not be given relief even if they are similarly situated, since the judgment they seek to rely on, was passed in the case of certain applicants alone who moved the court? That would be a very unfair scenario,” observed the bench.
Highlighting the discriminatory treatment, the bench said, “The appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration when other similarly situated officers were granted permanent commission. What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.”
According to a report by news agency PTI, the court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure justice, directing the authorities to grant permanent commission to the officer retroactively from the date when similarly situated officers received the benefit.
Additionally, the court ordered the implementation of the directive within four weeks, along with all consequential benefits, including seniority, promotion, and arrears.
The appellant, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Dental Corps stationed in Agra, had challenged the January 2022 order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) Regional Bench in Lucknow. The officer argued that she was unjustly denied permanent commission, unlike her peers who benefitted from a 2014 AFT principal bench judgment.
The officer joined the Army Dental Corps in 2008 as a Short Service Commission officer and was entitled to three attempts at the departmental examination for permanent commission. However, a policy amendment in 2013 capped the age limit for candidates and excluded officers without a Master’s degree in Dental Surgery, depriving her of a third attempt.
The woman officer contended that her inability to participate in the original litigation stemmed from her advanced pregnancy at the time. Despite this, the authorities extended the benefits of the 2014 judgment only to those who had filed the case, disregarding similarly placed personnel like her.