The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-retrospective application of its prior judgment on Judge Advocate General (JAG) recruitment, permitting the petitioner to complete ongoing training but denying any entitlement to appointment based on the current 35th recruitment cycle.
The petitioner, Seerat Kaur, filed the petition seeking that the Supreme Court’s earlier directions mandating a common merit list and gender-neutral recruitment for JAG posts be applied retrospectively to include the 35th recruitment cycle. She claimed that her rights were infringed by exclusion from consideration under the prior regime for this cycle.
The petitioner was not selected under the 35th JAG recruitment cycle which was initiated before the Arshnoor Kaur judgment. The dispute centred on whether the new recruitment norms should apply to the ongoing cycle, potentially granting the petitioner and others an opportunity to be considered. The Court had earlier permitted the petitioner interim relief to join the ongoing training.
The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized legal certainty and fairness to all participants, deciding not to disrupt the ongoing process but allowing the petitioner to complete training as a special, non-precedential measure. The Court cautioned that if all selected candidates complete successfully, the petitioner cannot claim appointment from that cycle but may be considered if vacancies arise later.
The writ petition was dismissed accordingly.
