Some petitions challenged the validity of the scheme, while it was argued in some others that the petitioners had gone through the recruitment process for the armed forces that was prevalent prior to the Agnipath scheme.
Appearing for some of the petitioners, advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that they had been shortlisted but had not been appointed because of the scheme and, thereby, had been discriminated against. He said these candidates had declined appointments in Border Security Force and other central forces as their names had been included in the provisional selected list.
Appearing for the Centre, additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati and counsel Rajat Nair informed a bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud that those who had registered for recruitment in the armed forces prior to announcement of the scheme were given exclusive chances to compete through special rallies.
The bench, after hearing the Centre, said there was no vested right to get employed in the armed forces even though it was a settled principle of law that the government could not act arbitrarily.
In its February 27 judgment, the HC had said, “A perusal of material on record shows that the scheme is a well-thought-out policy decision by the Government of India. The candidates selected under the impugned scheme would be enrolled as Agniveers, which forms a distinct rank in the armed forces.”
As per the scheme, 25% of Agniveers, on completion of four years, would be appointed as regulars in the armed forces and the remaining 75% would enjoy preference in recruitment to paramilitary forces.
“We have extensively gone through the Agnipath scheme, and can conclusively state that this scheme was made in the national interest to ensure that the armed forces are better equipped,” the HC had said.