Judicial review of executive policy decisions limited; no interference absent mala fides, arbitrariness, or illegality.

ORDER

Shri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

“(a) Kindly allow the present original application filed by the applicant against the Impugned order / letter i.e., Annexure – A1.

(b) Direct the respondents to amend the annexure – 1 and consider the name of the applicant for the inter-unit transfer to 969 Railway Engineer Regiment (TA), Jamalpur.

(c) Quashed and set aside the notice for discharge from Territorial Army dated 27.03.2023 served in the nature of the applicant.

(d) Direct the respondents to prepare SUL list of Railway Officers instead of discharging the Applicant in case Applicant is not considered under clause (b) of prayer.

(e) Any other relief or direction which this learned tribunal deems in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of applicant.”

3. The compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.01.2023 and impugned letter dated 27.03.2023 regarding the notice for discharge from Territorial Army to the applicant from his regiment 1032 Railway Engineers Regiment (TA) unit, Adra passed by the Respondents. The impugned order / letter dated 20.01.2023 is related to inter-unit transfer of manpower from 05 Railway Engineer Regiments (TA) under Disbandment to 969 Railway Engineer Regiment (TA), Jamalpur including the posting of 12 TA officers who have been approved by the respondents for inter-unit transfer. The applicant is aggrieved as the list of retained officers did not contain the name of the applicant although he claims to be fulfilling all the criteria for Inter-unit transfer and includes the name of another. It has also been alleged that officer who has been junior to the applicant in terms of seniority has been given preference over him.

4. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was initially selected as IRSS in the Railway Department and joined at DLW, Varanasi. He was working for eleven months in DLW, Varanasi and for one month in Territorial Army Unit initially at Chandigarh and later at Adra. Respondent no. 1 and 3 decided to close the five TA Units namely, 970 Railway Engineer Regiment , Jhansi (UP); 1031 Railway Engineer Regiment, Kota (Rajasthan); 1032 Railway Engineer Regiment, Adra (West Bengal); 1101 Railway Engineer Regiment, Chandigarh (UT) and 1105 Railway Engineer Regiment, Secundarabad (Telangana) and disband the personnel working there and to sent them back to their parent department. Learned counsel for the applicant, referring to the relief clause argued that he is not pressing for relief no. A, B and C and his claim is only limited to relief no. D that is to issue direction to the competent authority of the respondents to prepare a SUL list and keep the name of the applicant in that list and in the eventuality of war, the applicant be also given the opportunity to participate.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the aforesaid relief be allowed to keep the dignity and honour of the applicant. It is also argued that the aforesaid prayer is made on behalf of the applicant in national interest as earlier the respondents have followed the said principle. They have prepared the SUL list but at present they are not preparing the said list despite obtaining willi