Supreme Court of India· 24 March 2026

Must selection criteria and vacancies be disclosed before a Permanent Commission Selection Board?

Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

2026 INSC 282
Coram: Surya Kant; Ujjal Bhuyan; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Regulation 203 Regulations for t…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Yes. The Navy confined the Approach Paper, the vacancy computation methodology and the evaluation criteria to internal approval while the Army and the Air Force promulgated theirs to the affected officers. That asymmetry undermined transparency, and the material had to be placed in the public domain before the selection process began.

Headnote

Navy Act, 1957 - s.9(2) - Regulations for the Navy Part III, 1963 - Regulation 203 - Permanent Commission - Short Service Commission Officers - Annual Confidential Reports - Fairness in selection - Regulations for the Navy Part III, 1963 - Regulation 203 - ACR grading under an assumption of ineligibility - Held: Where officers were graded under a bell-curve-based system while understood to be ineligible for Permanent Commission, higher gradings served no institutional purpose and endorsements against them were mechanical. Past ineligibility so converted into deemed unsuitability materially distorts inter se merit. (¶13, 17) Regulations for the Navy Part III, 1963 - Regulation 203 - Vacancies in the stabilised cadre - Material time - Held further: The material time for assessing vacancies is when officers are actually considered, since a historical deficiency bears no rational connection to the cadre position then prevailing. Distributing the deficiency over a fifteen-year horizon is anchored in service realities, not caprice. (¶33, 38) Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14 - Existence of a vacancy - No right to be selected - Held further: A candidate has no right to be selected merely because a vacancy exists, and the competent authority may leave vacancies unfilled for policy reasons. Such a choice stands unless it is arbitrary, undermines merit or is otherwise illegal. (¶41) Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14 - Selection Board - Prior disclosure of criteria and vacancies - Held further: Confining the evaluation criteria and vacancy computation methodology to internal approval, while the Army and the Air Force promulgated theirs, violates basic norms of fairness and transparency. Appeals allowed and Permanent Commission granted in place of a fresh Board. (¶51, 56)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 48There is, patently, a dissonance on the promulgation of policy documents on the conduct of the Selection Boards between the Navy and the other two wings of the Armed Forces. While the Army and the Air Force ensured that the affected officers were informed, in advance, of the criteria and modalities governing selection, the Navy confined such material to internal approval processes. This asymmetry in disclosure, as correctly noted by the AFT, undermined the transparency of the selection exercise. This dichotomy led the AFT to direct the Respondents to hold a renewed Special Board, after the public dissemination of the relevant material and policy considerations.

Paragraph 51In these circumstances, the failure to disclose the evaluation criteria, vacancy computation methodology, and allied policy considerations prior to the conduct of the Selection Boards in 2020 and 2022 must be held to have violated basic norms of fairness and transparency. We, therefore, find no reason to differ from the view taken by the AFT in this regard. The conclusion that the Navy was obligated to place the relevant policy material in the public domain, in a timely manner and before the commencement of the selection process, merits affirmation.

Acts & Sections

Regulation 203 Regulations for the Navy Part III, 1963s.9(2) Navy Act, 1957s.184 Navy Act, 1957Art. 14 Constitution of India, 1950

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can ACRs written while an officer was ineligible for Permanent Commission decide his merit?Must the Navy fill every vacancy existing in a stabilised cadre?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections