The Supreme Court ordered the Center and the Indian Air Force not to release the service of an officer of a woman who was part of the Balakot Operation and Sindoor Operation, but a permanent commission was rejected. File | Photo Credit: PTI
The India Supreme Court ordered the Center and the Indian Air Force on Thursday (May 22, 2025) not to launch a woman who was part of the Balakot Operation and the Sindoor Operation, but was rejected by the Permanent Commission.
The bench of Judge Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh searched for the responses of the center and the IAF to ask the wing commander Nikita Pandey, who claimed discrimination for denied a permanent commission. The bench called IAF professional force and said that uncertainty in service was not good for such officers.
“Our Air Force is one of the best organizations in the world. Officers are very praise. The quality of the coordination they have exposed is unbeatable. That’s why we always say hello. It’s a great benefit for the nation.
The bench recorded “hard life” officers for the short service commission (SSC), which began after its recruitment, which after 10 or 15 years demanded an incentive to grant them a permanent commission. “This feeling of uncertainty may not be good for the armed forces. It is a layman’s design because we are not experts. There is no compromise on a minimal scale,” Kant said.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswama, who appeared for the officer, said that her client is a professional fighter controller who participated in an expert on integrated Air Command and Control (IACC), which were deployed in the Sindoor and Operation Balakot operation.
The leading advisor said the officer had served more than 13.5 years on duty, but was influenced by the 2019 policy, which rejected its permanent commission and forced it to enter its service after a month. “The officer ranked second in the list of merit of the professional managers of the fighter fighter in the country,” added Mrs. Guruswamy.
The bench applied for a general lawyer Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared for the Center and IAF, the reason why he did not provide the permanent commission of the officer. Mrs. Bhati revealed that she was one of the background of the armed forces, and therefore perceived the problems of such officers, but claimed that the petitioner was found by an unfit selection board. She said that the officer directly moved the Supreme Court without losing any representation, and informed the bench that the second selection board would consider its case.
The bench ordered Mrs. Pandey not to be released from the service to other commands and sent on August 6. However, the Supreme Court stated that no capital would be created in its favor and left open to all content in this case.
Mrs. Bhati had no objections in the officers who continued to duty, because most officers in the armed forces were brilliant officers, but the final question related to comparative merit and the need to maintain the strength of the young. She said that the “steep pyramidal structure” follows IAF, which requires some officers to come out of service after serving for 14 years and new officers will come to their place.
Justice Kant said Mrs. Bhati that the armed forces should have the ability to accommodate all SSC officers in a permanent commission and stressed that female officers were extremely well. “Given the lack of a permanent commission for female officers, short services are recruitable after long duration.
Mrs. Bhati replied that, usually of the 100 officers considered for the Permanent Commission, almost 90-95% of officers were found, but some lost only because of comparative merit. “There are a limited number of posts, it is a very steep structure of the pyramid,” she said.
Published – May 23, 2025 12:03
