The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed pleas seeking orders to complete recruiting processes for the Indian Army and Air Force that were halted after the ‘Agnipath’ scheme was launched in June 2022.
The pleas were filed against the Delhi High Court’s decision upholding the Agnipath Scheme, which made persons aged 17 and a half to 23 eligible to seek for induction into the armed services for a four-year term.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and JB Pardiwala dismissed the petitions, stating that the candidates have no vested right to seek completion of the recruiting process.
The bench also rejected the claim that the ‘doctrine of promissory estoppel’ would apply and stated that the choice not to continue with the prior recruitment processes could not be considered arbitrary. It was noted that promissory estoppel does not apply when the wider public interest is at stake.
“There is nothing for us to do. It is a matter of public employment, not a contract,” CJI observed.
Advocate Arunava Mukherjee, who appeared for the petitioners, stated right away that he is not contesting the scheme and that the matter is limited to the completion of the previously announced recruitment processes for the Army and Air Force. He claimed that the Centre repeatedly postponed the exams, citing COVID, before announcing the Agnipath plan in June. The Air Force tests were held, but the results were not published, according to the counsel. He emphasized that the exams were never cancelled, but were just postponed.
“So, the process that started earlier- physical and medical tests- happened, but the entrance test did not. And when the new scheme came along, they decided not to pursue it at all. But ultimately, there is no vested right,” CJI observed during the hearing.
The counsel requested that even if the petitioners are admitted, the Agnipath plan will not be jeopardised.
ASG Aishwarya Bhati, representing for the Centre, told the bench that the Delhi High Court’s decision addressed these matters in depth. “There were a variety of issues during the COVID period–these were extraordinary times for institutions. It is not a pick-and-choose process. We had to fill the vacancies in the interest of defence and national interest”, ASG submitted.
“The exigencies demanded that we modulate the recruitments in this manner,” the ASG explained.
In another case, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the petitioners were placed on the Air Force’s provisional list after passing various tests. “Then, for a year, they continued promising appointment letters would be given, but they were always postponed. We went through the entire procedure and were still not hired. Consider this people’s plight. They’ve been waiting for three years,” Bhushan submitted. In these situations, he argued, the law of ‘promissory estoppel’ will be used.
“Frankly. There is no vested right here, Mr Bhushan. In the circumstances, it is not arbitrary,” CJI Chandrachud stated. However, at Bhushan’s request, the bench consented to hear his case separately on April 17, but dismissed the other. (in which Mr.Mukherjee appeared).
The bench also dismissed a plea filed by Advocate ML Sharma against the Delhi High Court’s decision upholding the Agnipath scheme. Sharma’s key point was that the scheme could not have been implemented through an executive order and that a Parliamentary law was required.
