Judicial review cannot substitute executive judgment in administrative decisions to disband Territorial Army units.

The five applicants were commissioned officers serving in 970 Jhansi Unit, Railway Engineer Regiment, Territorial Army, while being employed in various posts under the Indian Railways

The authorities decided to disband five of the six Railway Engineer Regiments and retain 969 Railway Engineer Regiment at Jamalpur. Personnel of the units proposed to be disbanded were to be considered for inter-unit transfer to the retained regiment, subject to willingness and availability of vacancies

The applicants claimed that they had expressed willingness for transfer to 969 Railway Engineer Regiment but were not included in the transfer lists. They were thereafter served notices dated 11 February 2023 proposing their discharge from the Territorial Army

They consequently sought amendment of the transfer list, consideration for transfer, quashing of the discharge notices, or preparation of a surplus/under-utilised list (“SUL list”) instead of discharge

The applicants were unrepresented even on the revised call; the Tribunal proceeded to decide the OA on merits under Rule 15(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, after hearing the respondents

1. Whether the applicants could seek judicial interference with the respondents’ administrative and policy decision to disband the Railway Engineer Regiments and reorganise the Territorial Army units

2. Whether the applicants were entitled to inter-unit transfer to 969 Railway Engineer Regiment, Jamalpur, merely because they had expressed willingness for such transfer

3. Whether the notices proposing the applicants’ discharge from the Territorial Army were liable to be quashed or substituted by preparation of an SUL list

4. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute concerning Territorial Army personnel, as contended by the respondents

The Tribunal applied Rule 15(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, permitting adjudication of the matter on merits in the absence of the applicants

It relied principally on the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Aditya Sharma & Others v. Union of India, CWP No. 5865 of 2023, decided on 10 April 2024, concerning the same disbandment policy

The Tribunal applied Section 3 of the Territorial Army Act, 1948, as discussed in Aditya Sharma, under which the Government possesses authority to constitute and disband Territorial Army units

It further applied the settled principles of judicial review from Union of India v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, (2001) 5 SCC 593, Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, and Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1: courts review the legality and decision-making process, but do not substitute their own view for that of the executive in policy matters; interference is justified only for mala fides, arbitrariness, violation of statutory or constitutional provisions, irrelevant considerations, abuse of power, or a decision that no reasonable authority could have reached

The Tribunal found the present controversy materially identical to that considered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Aditya Sharma, which had upheld the Government’s decision to disband the relevant Territorial Army units as an administrative and policy decision

Applying the narrow scope of judicial review, the Tribunal held that the applicants could not require the executive to retain a particular regiment or claim a vested right to transfer against available vacancies.

The decision affected the concerned units generally and was not shown to be targeted, mala fide, arbitrary, or contrary to any statutory or fundamental right

The Tribunal therefore declined to interfere with the disbandment policy or to direct the respondents to amend the transfer lists, transfer the applicants to Jamalpur, or prepare an SUL list.

The respondents’ jurisdictional objection was recorded, but the OA was dismissed principally on the merits by applying the binding reasoning of the analogous High Court decision

The prayers for inter-unit transfer to 969 Railway Engineer Regiment, quashing of the discharge notices dated 11 February 2023, and preparation of an SUL list were rejected

Any interim relief earlier granted was vacated, all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made