Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Hc Gd G Raghu & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 16174 of 2022 & CM APPL. 50580 of 2022
Decided On : 30-05-2023
ITBP - Posting to Indian Mission, Afghanistan - Standing Order No. 04/2017, Corrigendum & Addendum dated 11.02.2021 - Para 10(A), Para 21 - The court discussed the validity of the panel for Indian Mission Afghanistan, the conditions for re-consideration for the same type of mission, and the discretion of the competent authorities in deployment decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought writ of certiorari for quashing the order denying their posting to the Embassy of India in Afghanistan and a writ of mandamus for processing their case for posting, citing violation of Standing Order No. 04/2017 and Corrigendum & Addendum dated 11.02.2021. They had been selected for deputation to the Indian Mission, Afghanistan, but were repatriated prematurely due to the closure of the embassy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had served the minimum prescribed period in Afghanistan and their representations for re-deployment were rejected in violation of the relevant policies. However, the court held that the deployment decisions were administrative in nature and within the discretion of the competent authorities.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' eligibility for re-deployment, the discretion of the competent authorities in deployment decisions, and the violation of the relevant policies in rejecting the petitioners' representations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that deployment decisions were administrative and within the discretion of the competent authorities, while also acknowledging the violation of relevant policies in rejecting the petitioners' representations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, vacated the interim order, and held that the petitioners had exhausted the minimum period for deployment in Indian Mission Afghanistan, and the prerogative of deployment lay with the competent authorities.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the respondents, whereby their request for reconsideration for posting to embassy of India in Afghanistan, has been denied. In addition, a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to respondents to process the case of petitioners for posting them at Afghanistan in terms of Standing Order No. 04/2017 dated 07.06.2017 as well as Corrigendum & Addendum dated 11.02.2021, on parity with Shri Ravikant Gautam, Second in Command; Inspector (GD) Sunil Panwar; Inspector (GD) Gopal Singh Meena and Dr.Sunil Kumar Bhagat, who have been re-deployed to the Embassy of India, Afganistan vide order dated 22.06.2022, is also sought.
2. The facts, as narrated in the petition, are that petitioners had joined the services of Indo Tibetan Border Police Force ("ITBP") in the years 2001 and 2002 and were promoted to the rank of Head Constable in their respective trades. Pursuant to respondents inviting applications from eligible serving personnel for posting to Indian Mission, Afghanistan on deputation subject to passing the recruitment examination in the year 2019, petitioners applied and participated in the examination process. The respondents vide order dated 18.10.2019 declared the names of 128 successful candidates, wherein petitioners were shown to have made their place at Serial No. 14, 15, 16 and 17. The aforesaid order dated 18.10.2019 also mentioned that the names of the successful candidates were being kept in a separate panel for a period of three years in terms of Para 10(A) of Standing Order No. 04/2017 dated 07.06.2017 and after expiry of three years, their names shall automatically stand removed from the panel. Thereafter, respondents vide Corrigendum and Addendum dated 11.02.2021 added Para-21 stating that in case any officer/personnel get repatriated prematurely from a mission within a period of 03 months on operation grounds, they shall be reconsidered for the same type of mission subject to mental and physical fitness, if the requirement is generated within a year.
3. After being selected in the selection process of the year 2019, respondents approved petitioners' deputation for induction at EOI, Kabul (Afghanistan) vide MEA order no. Q/PE/6618/56/2018 dated 11.02.2021 and vide Movement Order dated 13.05.2021 directed the petitioners to proceed from 22nd Battalion, ITBP, New Delhi to EOI, Kabul, Afghanistan on 16.05.2021. However, due to changed circumstances with the rise of Taliban and temporary closure of Embassy of India in Afghanistan, the ITBP Officials were relieved from their duties on 16.08.2021 and repatriated back to India on 17.08.2021 i.e. prior to completion of their three months deputation service in Afghanistan.
4. Subsequent upon reopening of Indian Embassy in Kabul on 22.06.2022, the ITBP personnel, including petitioner No.1, who were repatriated from Indian Mission, Afghanistan made representations to the respondents seeking re-deployment in Indian Mission, Afghanistan. However, instead of re-deploying the petitioners and such like other officials, the respondents in contravention of aforesaid Standing Order 04/2017 dated 07.06.2017 as well as Corrigendum & Addendum dated 11.02.2021, directed to recruit a fresh batch of officers for security at EoI, Kabul. The representations made by petitioner and other officers were rejected by the respondents on the ground of being contrary to Corrigendum & Addendum dated 11.02.2021.
5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners drew attention of this Court to Para-10 of the Standing Order No. 04/2017 dated 07.06.2017 which reads as under:
"(10) VALIDITY OF SELECTED CANDIDATES:
(A) FOR INDIAN MISSION AFGHANISTAN
The list of selected officers/personnel shall be valid normally for a period of three years from the date of completion of selection test or from the
The central legal point established is that the deployment and repatriation of personnel at foreign missions are purely administrative matters and cannot be dictated by the Court. Service personnel h....
Personnel of armed forces lack vested rights to specific postings; courts cannot intervene in administrative decisions concerning military deployments.
Service personnel do not have a vested right to specific postings, and courts cannot interfere in administrative decisions regarding deployment based on operational needs.
The court upheld the discretion of administrative bodies in selection processes, emphasizing that personnel do not have a fundamental right to claim deputation but a right to fair consideration based....
The court ruled that repatriation during ongoing litigation violates interim orders, necessitating reinstatement.
The court upheld the principle that amendments affecting criteria for deputation should not be applied retroactively and should not unfairly affect the rights of candidates who had already qualified ....
A CRPF personnel's eligibility for transfer and relaxation of transfer conditions on medical grounds are determined by the Standing Order, and completion of prescribed tenures justifies transfer orde....
A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place and is liable to be transferred from one place to another, and the court should not interfere with a....
The decision not to transfer the Petitioner to the Embassy of India in Nepal was neither arbitrary nor vitiated by malice, and the Petitioner had no vested right over a particular post in a particula....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
