MAJ. AMOD KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 06-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
MAJ. AMOD KUMAR
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 918 of 2017)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2018
[R. F. NARIMAN AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Posting – Of personnel belonging to Army Service Corps
(ASC) in operational areas – Challenged on the ground that since
ASC was mentioned as ‘non-operational’ corps in Lt. Col. P.K.
Choudhary case, personnel of that corps cannot be posted in
‘operational areas’ – Held: All the streams of Army work and
co-operate in order to form a cohesive organisation – Postings and
transfers are a necessary incident of service – As per the oath
administered to the personnel, they are duty bound to serve wherever
they are ordered to – Matters of transfer should be left to the
discretion of competent authority – To accept the plea of the
petitioners on the basis of finding in Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary case,
would be to disturb the entire structure and operations of Army –
Petitioners have also not alleged violation of any rules, executive
policies or instruction nor alleged mala fide.
Constitution of India:
Art. 32 – Petition under – Challenging posting orders in Indian
Army – Maintainability of – Held: Postings and transfers are a
necessary incident of service – Grievance against the same, if any,
cannot be entertained u/Art. 32, as alternate statutory remedy is
available before Armed Forces Tribunal.
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. The Petitioners have contended that the Posting
Orders, posting them to operational areas/units is violative of
their Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution. The 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.  The
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 28
28
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
29
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. [Paras 6.2, 6.3][34-G-H;
35-A-C]
2. The Army is comprised of eleven major streams.
Personnel are imparted specialised training in their designated
field. All streams work and co-operate 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. To accept the prayers of the Petitioners merely
on the basis of the contention that the ASC have been referred
to as ‘non-operational’ in *Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary case for the
purposes of promotion, would be to disturb the entire structure
and operations of the Army.  As per the Oath administered to
Officers and Sepoys, personnel are duty bound to serve wherever
they are ordered to. [Paras 6.1, 6.4 and 6.6][34-D, E-G; 36-G-H;
38-B-C]
3. The Petitioners have not made any submission that the
postings are in violation of any statutory rules, executive policies
or instructions. The Petitioners have also not alleged any mala
fide against the Respondents.  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 mala fide on the part of the
competent authority. [Para 6.5][37-A, C, E, F]
Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India & Ors.
(2005) 7 SCC 227; Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1991)
Supp 2 SCC 659; Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993)
4 SCC 357: [1993] 3 SCR 427; National Hydroelectric
Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574:
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 18 – relied on.
MAJ. AMOD KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
*Union of India & Anr. v. Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary &
Ors.
(2016) 4 SCC 236 : [2016] 2 SCR 426 –
distinguished.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 2 SCR 426
distinguished Para 4.1
(2005) 7 SCC 227
relied on
Para 5.3
(1991) Supp 2 SCC 659
relied on
Para 6.4
[1993] 3 SCR 427
relied on
Para 6.4
[200
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.