New Delhi: Despite a distinguished career and three court orders in her favour, she is still waiting to become a Permanent Commission (PC) officer in the Navy.
Thrice she was considered, thrice she was turned down. This is the story of CDR Seema Chaudhary, who has still not given up the fight.
Recruited as a short-service commission (SSC) in 2007, Seema Chaudhary, in 2019 became the first officer in her batch to become a Commander. In her first 10 years of service as a naval officer, she got two promotions. Twice, she was found suitable for extension as an SSC officer-first in November 2016 and then in December 2018.
But despite a distinguished career record, Chaudhary has been doing the rounds of the Supreme Court since 2020.
Though she was considered thrice during this time, on all three occasions the Navy turned down her representation for being absorbed as a Permanent Commission officer, each time giving a different reason for the rejection.
In December 2020, Chaudhary was told there were no vacancies in the Navy to accommodate her. Later, in September 2022, she was found “low in inter-se” merit (found to have lower merit than her peers). This time she was considered with 2011-14 batch women officers, who were in the zone of consideration for PC.
Last year, which was the third time, Chaudhary was declared non-suitable because she did not have a recommendation letter from her senior, supporting her candidature as a PC officer. According to the Navy, the parameters require the officer to have three such letters. However, she had none.
Incidentally, all three meetings were subsequent to court orders, issued on different dates.
Chaudhary is back in the court for the fourth time, contesting a contempt petition against the Navy. According to her, the Navy’s decision to deny her PC last year was in breach of the SC judgement in her case. In February 2024, the SC had ordered the Navy to consider Chaudhary for PC on a standalone basis and create a vacancy for her in case there was not one.
Chaudhary’s petition
According to her, the Navy considered her case on the basis of parameters that were not applicable to her, but to those officers who were hired post 2008. Going by the SC judgement, she should have been evaluated on the basis of the 1999 policy, because she was a 2007 hiring. Chaudhary has, in her petition, alleged she was deliberately tested in terms of the 2008/2019 policy with an intention to oust her.
While hearing her petition last month, the Supreme Court voiced its extreme disappointment with the Navy for its non-compliance of the order. A bench led by Justice Suryakant and comprising Justice NK Singh minced no words in castigating the force for its biased approach towards a “competent” woman officer.
The judges were not aligned with the Navy’s explanation and said that it was coming up with a new excuse each time to deny the officer what she rightfully deserves. The counsel appearing for the Navy was told in unequivocal terms that Chaudhary has to be accommodated in accordance with SC’s February 2024 order. The bench will now take up the case in July, soon after the court re-opens after a summer recess.
Enrolled in the law department of the Navy, Chaudhary could go on to become the first woman officer to hold the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG’s) post-the top position for a law officer in the forces.
Being a 2007 batch officer, Chaudhary missed the bus when a policy on PC for women SSC officers in the Navy was introduced in 2008. But she saw an opportunity when the Delhi High Court in 2015 directed the Navy to grant PC to all women officers recruited with it, including those who joined before 2008.
After she got her second extension as an SSC officer in August 2018, Chaudhary submitted a statutory representation to the Navy for PC. In December 2019, the Navy rejected her representation, saying she was not covered under the 2008 policy that was not retrospective in operation.
Chaudhary then moved the Supreme Court where the Centre’s appeal against the 2015 Delhi HC judgement on PC for Navy women officers was pending. Five years later, in 2020, the top court upheld the HC verdict, saying all SSC offices in education, law and logistics cadres, who are presently in service, shall be considered for PC. The judgement was extended to Chaudhary as well.
However, pursuant to her representation, the Navy declined PC to her, after which she approached the SC in January 2021. During the pendency of her petition, she was told there was no vacancy to accommodate her as a PC officer.
On SC’s suggestion, Chaudhary moved the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in September 2021 for relief. But before she did so, she was discharged from service, as her 14-year SSC term had expired.
Months later, though, the AFT decided her plea along with similar petitions filed by women officers from batches that were junior to Chaudhary’s. The AFT told the Navy to consider Chaudhary with officers from the 2011 and 2014 batches.
Aggrieved by this decision, she moved the top court again in January 2022. And, while her appeal was pending, the Navy convened a meeting in September 2022 and after considering her candidature, rejected her on the ground that she was “low in inter-se” merit.
In SC, Chaudhary’s case was erroneously tagged with other cases of Navy women officers and was once again remanded to the AFT for fresh consideration. However, on a review by her, which said her case was not similar to the others, the SC in February 2024, ruled in her favour.
Supreme Court: ‘Prejudice has been caused’
In a detailed judgement, the SC held “prejudice has been caused” to Chaudhary and the same must be rectified to enforce the top court judgement of 2020 that ordered the Navy to grant PC to all women SSC offices, irrespective of their date of joining. There was a specific direction to consider her on a standalone basis.
During the hearing in SC in May, Chaudhary’s counsel, senior advocate Rekha Palli, pointed out that her client had received recommendation letters, twice, from her seniors for PC. As per the contempt petition, these recommendations were made in December 2018 and then in January 2019.
Palli highlighted Chaudhary’s credentials and the fact that there was nothing adverse in her Annual Confidential Reports (ACR). Rather, she was graded very well, thereby making her suitable for PC.