Natural justice and disclosure of sealed-cover material required before assessing denial of Permanent Commission.

The Armed Forces Tribunal's reliance on sealed-cover vacancy data and Selection Board material, without disclosure to the affected officers, breached natural justice. The undisclosed material was used to support findings of no mala fides, no gender bias, and failure only on comparative merit, yet the officers were denied access to the very basis of those conclusions. Because they could not effectively challenge the data or the selection process, substantial prejudice resulted. The Tribunal's judgment could not be sustained and the matter required fresh adjudication after disclosure of the relevant material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision upholding denial of Permanent Commission could stand when the vacancy data and Selection Board material relied upon by the Tribunal were disclosed only in sealed cover and were not made available to the affected officers.

Analysis: The material used to test the computation of vacancies and the fairness of the selection process was not disclosed to the appellants, although it was relied upon by the Tribunal in reaching findings that there was no mala fide, no gender bias, and that the officers had failed only on comparative merit. The governing principles required disclosure of all material relevant to the dispute, especially where such material could reasonably influence the decision-making process. Since the officers were denied access to the data and proceedings that formed the basis of the Tribunal's conclusions, they were unable to effectively challenge those findings. This resulted in substantial prejudice and a breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's judgment could not be sustained and the matter had to be remanded for fresh adjudication after disclosure of the relevant material.

---