Punjab & Haryana High Court To Decide Plea Challenging 90% Reservation For Men In Army Dental Corps
The Punjab and Haryana High Court last month issued notice on a plea challenging Indian Army's decision to reserve 90 percent vacancies in the Army Dental Corps for male candidates, listing the matter for further hearing in December. The petitioner, Satbir Kaur, moved the High Court submitting that 30 vacancies had been advertised for the post of Army Dental Corps by the Indian...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court last month issued notice on a plea challenging Indian Army's decision to reserve 90 percent vacancies in the Army Dental Corps for male candidates, listing the matter for further hearing in December.
The petitioner, Satbir Kaur, moved the High Court submitting that 30 vacancies had been advertised for the post of Army Dental Corps by the Indian Army. However, out of these 30 vacancies which were advertised, 27 were reserved for males and only 3 for females.
The petitioner further submitted that as per the information brochure, candidates were called for interview in the ratio of 1:10 and that the performance in the interview was to be the basis of the final merit-list for grant of Short Service Commission in the Army Dental Corps. However, only 30 lady candidates were called for the interview, as opposed to 270 male candidates who were invited for the interview.
The petitioner challenged this arrangement restricting the number of female candidates to 3 on the touchstone of the Constitution of India. Arguing that this was not a 'Combat Arm,' the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya and Others.
Finally, the petitioner pointed out that the merit based on the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEETMDS), 2022 would go on to depict that for male candidates, merit would dip to 2934 and for the lady candidates it would be at 235.
The advocate for the Union of India – the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the 3 vacancies for women was fixed, keeping in view various factors including retirement of lady officers.
After hearing the writ petition, the division bench of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jagmohan Bansal passed interim relief for the petitioner ordering that she shall also be provisionally interviewed for the post and that the recruitment process shall be subject to the final decision of the High Court.
Case Title: Satbir Kaur v. Union of India and Others
Citation: CWP No. 23662 of 2022
Coram: Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jagmohan Bansal