MAJ. AMOD KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION   WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 918 OF 2017   Maj. Amod Kumar   …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Anr.      …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 965/2017 AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1077/2017   J U D G E M E N T     INDU MALHOTRA, J.   1. The above­mentioned Writ Petitions were heard together as they raise common issues, and are being disposed of by the present common Judgement. 2. The facts material for the purposes of deciding the present Writ Petitions have been set out hereinbelow. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SHASHI SAREEN Date: 2018.09.11 15:36:12 IST Reason: 3. The Petitioners are personnel belonging to the Army Service Corps (“ASC”).   The   Petitioners   in   Writ   Petition   (Civil)   Nos.   918   and 2 1077/2017 are Officers holding the ranks of Major and Lieutenant Colonel respectively, while the Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 965/2017 is holding the rank of Sepoy. The   Petitioners   have   impugned   Posting   Orders   issued   by   the Respondents, posting them to operational units/operational areas. The Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 918/2017 – Major Amod Kumar, who was serving as an Officer of the ASC, was posted to 44 Rashtriya Rifles as a Mechanical Transport Officer  vide  Order dated July 20, 2017. The Petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 965/2017 – Sepoy Prahalad Singh was serving in the ASC, having being trained for driving special vehicles. He was posted to 4 Rashtriya Rifles  vide Order  dated   September   4,   2017.   The   Petitioner   in   Writ   Petition (Civil) No. 1077/2017 – Lieutenant Colonel Shubhankar Mishra, who was serving as an Officer of the ASC, was posted to 694 Coy ASC (Tank and Transport) as an Officer Commanding     Order vide dated September 15, 2017. 4.  S     UBMISSIONS   OF   THE  P ETITIONERS   The Petitioners were represented by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Learned Senior   Advocate.   The   Petitioners   inter   alia   made   the   following submissions: 4.1. The Petitioners submitted that they belong to the ASC, and 3 have   been   posted   to   ‘operational’   areas/formations   despite the findings of this Court in  Union of India & Anr.  v.  Lt. Col. 1 P.K. Choudhary & Ors.  (“ Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s  Case”). 4.2. The   Petitioners   submitted   that   this   Court   in   Lt.   Col.   P.K. Choudhary’s   Case had held that the ASC, EME and other Minor Corps are ‘non­operational’ units/formations based on the stand taken by the Union of India. The Petitioners submitted that even though the findings of this Court in   Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s   Case that the ASC are ‘non­operational’ were rendered while adjudicating the issue of distribution of vacancies which had been created for the rank of Colonel amongst the various Corps of the Indian Army, the same would apply in the present case. 4.3. The Petitioners claim that as a consequence of the Judgement in  Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s  Case wherein the Petitioners have been   classified   to   be   ‘non­operational’   for   promotional avenues, the same classification should apply as a necessary corollary for the purposes of deployment and postings also. 4.4. It was  submitted that the  preference given to ‘operational’ Corps   in   the   matter   of   promotions   was   unjustified, particularly since personnel of the ASC move alongside with 1 (2016) 4 SCC 236. 4 personnel belonging to the other Corps in operational areas. Thus, they are as vulnerable as the personnel of the other Corps. On   this   basis,   the   Posting   Orders   issued   by   the Respondents directing the Petitioners to serve in operational units/areas were challenged as  being  in gross violation of their Fundamental Rights and principles of natural justice. 5. S   UBMISSIONS   OF   THE  R ESPONDENTS   The   Respondents   –   Union   of   India,   and   the   Military   Secretary Branch   were   represented   by   Mr.   R.   Balasubramanian,   Learned Advocate. The Respondents made the following submissions: 5.1. The   present   Writ   Petitions   under   Article   32   are   not maintainable, since there is no violation of their Fundamental Rights whatsoever. Hence, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed at the threshold on this count alone. 5.2. It was further submitted that if the Writ Petitioners have any grievance,   the   alternate   remedy   of   challenging   the   Posting Orders before the Armed Forces Tribunal is available. Hence, the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground also. 5.3. On merits, it was submitted that transfers are not only a 5 necessary incident of service, but an essential condition of service.   An   employee   has   no   legal   right,   much   less   a Fundamental Right, to be posted in a particular place, or to be transferred to a place of his/her choice. The competent authority is empowered to determine the place of posting of the personnel concerned. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of this 2 Court in  Major General J.K. Bansal  v.  Union of India & Ors.   to submit that the scope of interference in matters of transfer of members   of   the   armed   forces   is   very   limited,   and   courts should be slow to interfere with the decisions of competent authorities, in the absence of an exceptionally strong case. 5.4. It   was   further   submitted   that   the   reliance   placed   by   the Petitioners   on   the   observations   made   in   Lt.   Col.   P.K. Case (supra) is misplaced. Choudhary’s  In   that   case,   this   Court   was   considering   the   issue   of allocation of  additional vacancies  created  in the  Selection­ Grade rank of Colonel pursuant to the implementation of the recommendations of the Ajai Vikram Singh Committee. The decision in  Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s  Case was not rendered in 2 (2005) 7 SCC 227. 6 the context of transfers or posting orders. 5.5. The Respondents submitted that the Army has no personnel who   are   ‘non­combatants’   or   ‘non­operational’,   with   the exception of personnel belonging to the medical organisation who have a distinct status under International Humanitarian Law. The Combat Arms, Combat Support Arms, Army Service Corps, and other Minor Corps are all ‘operational’ entities having a distinct ‘operational’ role. 5.6. The posting of the Petitioners is a part of their Regimental Duty, and is not based on their willingness to occupy such posts. 5.7. The postings of the Petitioners are in accordance with the policies and instructions of career planning, and management issued from time to time, and do not violate any statutory rules. The  Petitioners  have  not referred  to any  statutory  rules, executive   policies,   or   instructions   which   debar   them   from being posted to such areas. 5.8. It was further submitted that the Petitioners have not alleged any  mala fides  or vindictiveness on the part of the authority which   has   issued   the   Posting   Orders.   Hence,   the   Writ 7 Petitions cannot be entertained on this ground also. 5.9. The Respondents submitted that the claim of the Petitioners that   they   are   ‘non­operational’   or   ‘non­combatants’   is untenable as it strikes at the very root of the organisational effectiveness of the Army. If the grievance of the Petitioners was to be entertained, it would generate disaffection amongst personnel, and directly impact the morale of the forces. 6. D   ISCUSSION   AND  A NALYSIS   In light of the submissions advanced by the parties, the following issues arise for consideration:  Whether the present Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution are maintainable?  Whether the action of the Respondents in posting the Petitioners and members of the ASC to ‘operational’ areas/units are valid in view of the decision of this Court in   Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case (supra)?  Whether the postings of the Petitioners to operational areas are violative of statutory rules, executive policies or instructions? The aforesaid issues will be addressed  seriatim  hereinbelow. 6.1. Before adverting to the issues at hand, a reference to the composition of the Army would provide the contextual matrix 8 of the case. The Army is comprised of eleven major streams   viz.   – 1) Armoured   Corps,   2)   Infantry,   3)   Mechanised   Infantry,   4) Artillery, 5) Air Defence, 6) Engineers, 7) Signals, 8) Army Service Corps, 9) Army Ordnance Corps, 10) Electronics and Mechanical   Engineers,   and   11)   Other   Corps   including Intelligence, Aviation and other Minor Corps. Each stream has a distinct and specialised role. Personnel are imparted specialised training in their designated field. All streams   work   and   co­operate   in   order   to   form   a   cohesive organisation.  The ASC is a vital stream which is primarily responsible for ensuring   provisioning,   procurement,   and   distribution   of supplies. ASC personnel provide the logistical support in the form of transportation, maintenance of vehicles, driving in difficult terrain, preserving equipment, and conserving fuel expended. 6.2. The   Petitioners   have   contended   that   the   Posting   Orders passed   by   the   Respondents   posting   them   to   operational areas/units   is   violative   of   their   Fundamental   Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The 9 Petitioners   have,   however,  failed   to  substantiate   how  their Fundamental   Rights   have   been   violated.   Postings   and transfers   are   a   necessary   incident   of   service.   Hence,   the grievance, if any, cannot be entertained under Article 32. 6.3. The Petitioners cannot assail posting/transfer orders directly before  the  Supreme   Court  by  way  of   Writ  Petitions   under Article   32   of   the   Constitution.   If   the   Petitioners   have   any genuine grievance, they have an alternate statutory remedy available by challenging the same before the Armed Forces Tribunals. Hence, the Writ Petitions under Article 32 are liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternate remedy. 6.4. The decision of this Court in  Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s   Case (supra) was rendered while adjudicating an Order passed by the   Armed   Forces   Tribunal   on   a   Policy   Circular   dated January 20, 2009 issued by the Government of India which had been quashed, and directions were issued to the Union of India to consider the personnel belonging to the Arms, Arms Support, and ASC for promotion to the rank of Colonel by creating supernumerary posts. This   Court   was   considering   the   issue   of   distribution   of 10 vacancies which had been created for the rank of Colonel amongst the various Corps of the Indian Army. This Court considered the findings of the Ajai Vikram Singh Committee, and   noted   that   Armoured   Corps,   Infantry,   Mechanised Infantry,   Artillery,   AD,   Engineers   and   Signals   were ‘operational   formations’,   while   the   ASC,   Army   Ordnance 3 Corps, and Electronics and Mechanical Engineers were not. The Officers belonging to the ASC, Army Ordinance Corps, and Electronic and Mechanical Engineers, i.e. the services stream, do not constitute a common cadre with those serving in   the   Arms,   and   Arms   Support   for   the   purposes   of 4 promotion. As   a  result,   they   were   not   entitled   to   be   considered   for promotion   to   the   rank   of   Colonel   against   the   vacancies created   in   pursuance   of   the   implementation   of   the   AVS Committee Report. This Court was not concerned with the issue of posting of personnel   belonging   to   the   ASC,   and   the   findings   therein cannot be said to apply to the present case. This   Court   was   cognisant   of   the   differential   treatment 3 (2016) 4 SCC 236, at paragraph 22. 4 (2016) 4 SCC 236, at paragraph 36. 11 accorded to personnel belonging to the ASC, amongst other streams,   in   the   matter   of   promotions.   The   following observations made by this Court in  Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case are pertinent, and are reproduced here under: “ …The   true   position   is   that   allocation   of   officers   to different Arms and Services puts them in distinct cadres with the result that those comprising a particular cadre will   have   his   or   her   promotional   avenues   available against   the   posts   comprising   that   cadre   alone notwithstanding the fact that the Government of India may, as a policy, attempt to ensure as far as possible that officers of a given batch pick up their ranks around the   same   time   or   within   a   reasonable   span   of   their counterparts in other cadres or that the disparity in time frame for promotion is removed by making promotions retrospective from the dates officers in other cadre have 5   been promoted   .” (Emphasis supplied) The   contention   of   the   Petitioners   claiming   parity   with   a different arm of the service, is misconceived and meritless, and is liable to be dismissed. Different streams of the Army have distinct, and specialised roles.   They   work   in   co­ordination   with   each   other.   The personnel   of   the   ASC   are   imparted   specialised   training  to provide logistical support to the other streams in the form of maintenance   of   vehicles,   availability   of   trained   drivers, preservation of equipment, and conservation of fuel. 5 (2016) 4 SCC 236, at paragraph 38. 12 To accept the prayers of the Petitioners merely on the basis of the contention that the ASC have been referred to as ‘non­ operational’   for   the   purposes   of   promotion,   would   be   to disturb the entire structure and operations of the Army. 6.5. The   Petitioners   have   not   made   any   submission   that   the postings   are   in   violation   of   any   statutory   rules,   executive policies or instructions. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of this Court in  Major General J.K. Bansal  v.  Union of India  (supra), which was cited by the Counsel for the Respondents during the hearing. In the said decision, this Court had referred to a 6 number   of   its   precedents   on   the   scope   of   interference   of Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases where transfer   orders   had   been   challenged.   The   Court   held   that matters   of   transfers   are   best   left   to   the   discretion   of   the competent authority, and should not be tinkered with, in the absence of a demonstrable violation of statutory rules, or an instance of   on the part of the competent authority. mala fide This Court noted as follows: “ 12…The scope of interference by the courts in regard to members of the armed forces is far more limited and 6 Shilpi Bose  v.  State of Bihar , 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659;  Union of India  v.  S.L. Abbas , (1993) 4 SCC 357; and,  National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd.  v.  Shri Bhagwan , (2001) 8 SCC 574. 13 narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed forces should be posted.   The   courts   should   be   extremely   slow   in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons   and   unless   an   exceptionally   strong   case   is made out, no interference should be made. ” The Petitioners have not alleged any   mala fide   against the Respondents.   Hence,   the   contentions   of   the   Petitioners cannot be entertained. 6.6. The   Respondents   have   made   a   reference   to   the   Oath administered   to   Officers   and   Sepoys   alike   at   the   time   of commissioning. The said Oath is reproduced hereinbelow for reference: “ I (Name) hereby solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India, as by law   established   and   that   I   will,   as   in   duty   bound honestly and faithfully, serve in the regular Army of the Union of India and go wherever ordered, by land, sea or air, and that I will observe and obey all the commands of the President of the Union of India and the commands of any officer set above me, even to the peril of my life. ” (Emphasis supplied) This Oath is administered to all personnel, irrespective of the Arm or Service to which they are commissioned. As per the Oath, personnel are duty bound to serve wherever they are ordered to. 6.7. In view of the above discussion, the Petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference by this Court. 14 7. In light of the aforesaid findings, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, with no order as to costs.           ..........................J.             (R.F. NARIMAN) ..........................J.             (INDU MALHOTRA) New Delhi September 6, 2018. 15 ITEM No. 1501          Court No. 9                SECTION  X (For Judgment)                  S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                     RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS           WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 918  of 2017 MAJ. AMOD KUMAR                              Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.              Respondent(s) WITH W.P.(CIVIL) NO. 965 OF 2017 W.P.(CIVIL) NO. 1077 OF 2017 Date : 06.09.2018  These matters were called on for pronouncement  of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Ms. Neela Gokhale, Adv. Mr. Ilam Paridi, Adv. Ms. Shradha Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi S.Mehlwal, Adv.                          For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Adv.         Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. Hon'ble Ms. Justice  Indu Malhotra pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra. These   petitions   are   dismissed   in     terms   of   the signed reportable judgment.  There shall be no order as to costs.

16 17