GITA MITTAL, J.

1. By this writ petition the petitioner assails the denial of the opportunity to go on the UN mission on which the unit, to which he was posted, has been deployed. The petitioner also assails the order dated 30th December, 2008, whereby he has been posted out of 2 JAK RIF long after the units deployment on the UN Mission.

2. There is no material dispute to the facts giving rise to the petition. To the extent necessary for the purposes of the present adjudication, the same are briefly noticed hereinafter.

3. The petitioner belongs to the Army Education Corps of the Indian army. We are informed that persons belonging to the Army Education Corps and other services are posted in different units for particular tenures. On 1st July, 2007, the petitioner was posted to the 2 JAK RIF, an infantry battalion, as its Havildar Instructor – then a Non-Commissioned Officer (hereafter referred to as „NCO? for brevity) of the army.

4. A letter No.40202/FM/SD-4(A) dated 31st January, 2008 was issued by the Integrated HQ of MOD (Army) informing that 2 JAK RIF was selected for a UN mission. Copy of this communication from the Additional Director, Directorate General of Staff Duties of the Integrated Headquarters of the MOD (Army) has also been placed on record by the respondents. We also find no dispute to this fact in the counter affidavit.

5. On the 1st July, 2008, an event which should have brought rejoicing to the petitioner occurred. Instead, the same has necessitated the filing of the present writ petition. The petitioner was promoted on this date to the rank of Naib Subedar. Consequently, he became a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO for brevity). It is an admitted position that even after his promotion, he continued to remain posted on the strength of 2 JAK RIF. It is an admitted position that on the 15th December, 2008 he was posted along with the unit for completion of the pre-induction training and formalities to the Khanpur Camp, New Delhi, as a precursor to the United Nations deployment.

6. Apart from the petitioner, one Subedar Mukesh Kumar Mishra, respondent no.6, had been detailed with 2 JAK RIF w.e.f. 6th November, 2006 as a JCO from the Army Education Corps.

7. In this background the Commanding Officer of the petitioners unit addressed a communication dated 18th September, 2008 to the Directorate General of Military Training intimating it of this position. It was pointed out that as per para 3 of the communication dated 9th March, 2007 from the Integrated HQ of MOD (Army), it was only specified that 2 AEC personal would accompany a unit on a UN Mission without mention of any rank structure. A recommendation was made by the Commanding Officer to permit the petitioner, who stood promoted, to accompany the unit on the UN Mission as the second AEC personnel in terms of the said communication.

8. The petitioner contends that after he had completed the essential training and formalities including satisfying the medical fitness test for the foreign posting, the respondent No.3 issued a signal on 25th December, 2008 posting the respondent No.7, AEC Hav. Jai Kumar to the 2 JAK RIF for accompanying the unit on the UN Mission with the direction to the respondent No.5 to”post out/side step” the petitioner. This was followed by a communication dated 30th December, 2008 from the respondent No.5 posting the petitioner out of 2 JAK Rif to HQ 89 INF BDE.

9. The petitioner has placed reliance on a message dated 11th March, 2009 from the AEC records to the petitioner?s unit to send the petitioner on the posting with the specific assurance that in case the Commanding Officer?s proposal for the petitioner to accompany the unit on the UN Mission was agreed to by the competent authority, the petitioner would be made available for such posting. The petitioner submits that on account of the pressure put on the petitioner?s Commanding Officer, he was compelled to issue the petitioner?s movement order on 21st March