Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Indo Tibetan Border Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on petitioners' posting and repatriation. (Para 3) |
| 2. petitioners seek reassignment to afghanistan. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments against premature transfer. (Para 5) |
| 4. respondent's reliance on policy document. (Para 6) |
| 5. court's observation on administrative decision-making. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. no vested right for personnel deployment at specific locations. (Para 10) |
| 7. decision to dismiss the petition. (Para 11) |
| 8. consideration for future deployment. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J.
CM No.23739/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7589/2021 & CM No.23738/2021 (for stay)
3. The present petition has been filed by 30 petitioners belonging to the respondent, Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), who were posted at Consulate General of India (CGI), Kandahar, Afghanistan between August-September, 2020 and February, 2021. The tenure of posting of the petitioners was to be for a term of two years. On account of disturbance and unrest in Afghanistan, it was decided by the Government of India to temporarily stop its operation in CGI, Kandahar and to send officials posted therein, in
Personnel of armed forces lack vested rights to specific postings; courts cannot intervene in administrative decisions concerning military deployments.
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....
Service personnel do not have a vested right to specific postings, and courts cannot interfere in administrative decisions regarding deployment based on operational needs.
Deployment decisions are administrative and within the discretion of the competent authorities, but must be made in accordance with relevant policies and without discrimination.
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....
Point of Law : A deputationist does not have an indefeasible right to insist his continuance in borrowing Department, when his service is no longer required in exigencies of service.
A posting order does not create an estoppel against the authority, emphasizing the non-existence of vested rights over particular posts in personnel transfers governed by service exigency.
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
