Facts
The Petitioner, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army, was granted a "spouse coordinated posting" at Bathinda on August 08, 2024, for a tenure of two years, expressly subject to "continued satisfactory performance"
Source reference: p. 2During her tenure, she received a warning for an Adverse Confidential Report (CR) on March 19, 2025, followed by a performance warning on May 23, 2025, citing deficiencies during "Operation Sindoor"
Source reference: p. 3Consequently, an Annual CR was accepted as "Adverse" under Para 129(f) of AO 05/2024/MS, and a posting order dated September 18, 2025, was issued transferring her out of the current unit, thereby terminating the spouse coordinated posting
Source reference: p. 3The Petitioner challenged this order, alleging it was mala fide and an arbitrary curtailment of her tenure
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the posting order dated 18.09.2025 was vitated by mala fides or arbitrariness so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Source reference: p. 4, 62. Whether an Army officer has an enforceable right to complete a specific tenure in a spouse coordinated posting despite unsatisfactory performance.
Source reference: p. 4, 6Law Applied
The Court applied the principle that transfer is an incident of service and no employee has a vested right to be posted at a particular station
Source reference: p. 4It relied on Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993) and Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1991), which establish that transfer guidelines are merely instructional and not judicially enforceable
Source reference: p. 4-5Furthermore, it cited Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India (2005) and Jagat Ram v. Union of India (2017) to emphasize that the scope of judicial interference in military postings is extremely narrow and restricted to cases of proven mala fides or violation of statutory provisions
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The Court observed that the Petitioner’s spouse coordinated posting was explicitly conditional upon "satisfactory performance"
Source reference: p. 6The record revealed multiple warnings regarding service deficiencies and an Adverse CR that was endorsed by competent authorities and remained unchallenged by the Petitioner
Source reference: p. 6The Court found that the Petitioner failed to provide "cogent material" to support the allegation of mala fides against the Commanding Officer (Respondent No. 5), noting that subjective dissatisfaction by superiors does not equate to legal malice
Source reference: p. 6Additionally, the Court noted that the Petitioner had already enjoyed spouse coordinated postings for 77 out of 149 months of her marriage, further weakening the plea of systemic prejudice
Source reference: p. 6Since the posting was based on administrative and operational requirements following a performance decline, the Court declined to sit as an appellate authority over the transfer order
Source reference: p. 5, 7Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no material evidence of mala fides or arbitrariness in the impugned posting order
The Court affirmed that posting in disciplined forces is determined by operational requirements and the Petitioner had no right to remain at the station given the unsatisfactory performance documented in her Adverse CR. The interim applications were also disposed of accordingly
Source reference: p. 6-7Original Court PDF
Ic-74753F Lt Col Manali ShrivastavavsUnion Of India And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in