- (1.) The petitioner, who had responded to the advertisement issued on 3 August 2015 First Advertisement inviting applications from married/unmarried male or unmarried female candidates for grant of Short Service Commission in the Indian Army for Judge Advocate General Department JAG, has filed this petition for quashing the subsequent advertisement dated 18 January 2016 Second Advertisement for the reason that the vacancies available against female candidates in the second advertisement were required to be filled-up by the first advertisement itself.
(2.) The first advertisement stipulated that the total number of vacancies were 14 out of which 10 were for male candidates and 4 were for female. The method of selection was indicated in Clause 6 of the advertisement, which is as follows : "Method of Selection: (a) Initial shortlisting of applications will be done by Recruiting Directorate, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army) and the decision of DG Recruiting will be final. Details of the shortlisted online applications will be put on Join Indian Army website. In this regard no representation will be entertained. (b) The shortlisted candidates whose applications are found to be correct shall be detailed for SSB interview at allotted Selection Centres on specified dates. (c) Two Stage Selection Procedure. Two stage selection procedure based on Psychological Aptitude Test is held at Selection Centres. All the candidates will face stage one test on first day of reporting at Selection Centres. The candidates who fail to pass stage one will be returned on the same day. (d) Candidates who qualify stage II will submit self attested photocopies of educational documents to Selection Centre for completion of their Dossier/verification. (e) Candidates who qualify at the Service Selection Board and are found medically fit by a Medical Board, will be placed in the order of merit. The final selection will be made in that order up to the number of vacancies available at that time."
(3.) The name of the petitioner appears at Serial No.12 in the merit list that was prepared. It is stated that initially there were only four vacancies for female candidates but later on the vacancies for female candidates were increased to 7. According to the petitioner, the second advertisement issued in January 2016 mentions four vacancies for female and so if such vacancies were available in January 2016, the merit list prepared in April 2016 should have included these 4 vacancies for female candidates in terms of the first advertisement and if that was so then the petitioner would have been selected since the total number of vacancies for female stood increased to 11 and one candidate had not joined. In this connection, petitioner has placed reliance on Clause 6(e) of the advertisement which provides that the final selection will be made upto the number of vacancies available at that time.;