The Armed Forces Tribunal order comes as the Army expands its technical cadre, making adherence to merit-based, transparent selections even more critical.
In a significant ruling that exposes serious flaws in the Indian Army’s selection for prestigious postgraduate technical training, the Armed Forces Tribunal has set aside the entire 2024-26 MTech selection under the Post Graduate Training (PGT) scheme, terming it arbitrary, non-transparent, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justice Rajendra Menon, Chairperson, and Lt Gen C P Mohanty, Member, Administrative, allowed a batch of eight original applications. The lead case was OA 2394/2024, Major Manohar Mishra vs Union of India & Ors, and the connected matters involving Majors Gaurav Singh, Jagdeep U, Vikas Verma, Mitender Yadav, Varun Singh, and Lt Col Deepan Sudarshan G.
The officers, all commissioned in key technical arms such as the Army Air Defence Corps (AAD), the Corps of Electronics and Mechanical Engineering (EME), and the Corps of Signals, challenged the final selection result notified on July 1, 2024.
They alleged that the Army Headquarters and Army Training Command (ARTRAC) blatantly violated its own February 2022 policy, which mandated 70 per cent weightage to written examination in GATE scores for 2024-26 and 30 per cent weightage to Military Secretary (MS) inputs for preparing an overall merit list before shortlisting for interviews.
Instead, the respondents issued instructions on April 18, 2024, directing that “GATE Scores will NOT be entered” on registration forms. The petitioners also contended that the Army never published any merit list (pre- or post-interview) and allowed candidates who failed to clear GATE cut-offs to appear and get selected.
The Army also reduced vacancies mid-process, from 30 to 20 in several corps, after applications were submitted. The petitioners also said that the finalised selections were made solely on interview recommendations, without disclosing or quantifying interview marks.
What did AFT say
The Tribunal, after examining service records, found that every petitioner had secured higher aggregate scores (GATE + MS inputs) than the candidates ultimately selected for the same vacancies, yet they were either wait-listed or rejected without any recorded reasons.
In its 40-page order, the Tribunal observed that the “selection process suffers from arbitrariness, lack of transparency, and excessive subjectivity.” “The quantified scores of the candidates were not placed before the Interview Board… The Interview shall not constitute a ‘Sole Methodology’ for the selection of candidates.”
The entire selection process, with a result dated July 1, 2024, was set aside by the AFT. It also ruled that for future selections, the Army must ensure full transparency: GATE + MS marks must be provided to the Interview Board, interview marks must be quantified, and the process must be objective.
The bench said that since the current academic session is substantially over, no fresh admissions can be ordered at this time. However, to prevent the officers from being rendered remediless, the Tribunal has directed the respondents to reserve one vacancy for each petitioner in the next available batch of the concerned MTech course (at IISc/IITs/DIAT, etc.) under the service quota.
This reservation will operate irrespective of future GATE results or the selection of other candidates. The entire exercise must be completed within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
The ruling is being seen as a major victory for merit and transparency in Army technical education programmes. It sends a strong message that even in defence services, selection processes cannot override declared policy or constitutional guarantees of fairness.
The petitioners were represented by Advocate Anand Kumar, and the matter was argued over several hearings, during which the Tribunal scrutinised the original records produced by the respondents.
This order comes at a time when the Army is expanding its technical cadre requirements, making adherence to merit-based, transparent selections even more critical.