LPA No. 1526 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1526 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 25, 2011 Mohan Singh and others …Appellants Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by the unsuccessful appellants against judgment dated 09.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the claim of the appellants that the Standard Operating Procedure ( for brevity “SOP”) as framed by the respondents to make selection of persons for detailing on United Nation Mission is illegal. The learned Single Judge appears to have viewed that there is no right for a person serving in force like Indo-Tibet Border Police Force ( for brevity “ITBP”) to ask for his detailment on U.N. Mission and their claims to be misplaced and misconceived. The learned Single Judge LPA No. 1526 of 2011 -2- has also expressed doubt that if any employee could challenge SOP formulated to lay down or form a criteria for such detailment depending upon the requirement of the organisation. 2. The claim of the appellants is that they have been selected for detailment and on account of change of procedure, they have been denied to be sent on United Nation Mission to Afghanistan and other places. They have also alleged that the others who have been selected from different cadres have been sent on United Nation Mission whereas their names have been cancelled from the panel of the select list. The learned Single Judge rejected the claim by observing that interference of this Court in such like matter can have any devastating effect. It has been pointed out that the detailment was regulated by SOP issued in the year 2008 and the troops were selected for deployment on foreign mission based on eligibility criteria as per prescription. The procedure has been followed to ensure fairness and otherwise no one can claim as a matter of right to be detailed on U.N. Mission or for deployment in a particular manner. The SOP was revised in the year 2007 and the age of eligibility of Head Constable was increased from 40 years to 45 years. The learned Single Judge also makes a reference to the recommendation made by the the Indian Ambassador in Kabul to point out that only those ITBP persons are to be deployed in countries like Afghanistan for protecting Embassy persons and the Indian property who had undergone basic Commando training with resultant change of SOP in the year 2010. Accordingly, there was a LPA No. 1526 of 2011 -3- need to change the SOP, which has been done in the year 2010 and a eligibility has now been provided for detailment of younger age group persons with compulsory Commando training. Accordingly, the age limit for detailment has been decreased so as to encourage person with younger age with compulsory Commando training. The SOP issued in the year 2007 has been cancelled. The decision to assess the suitability and eligibility by reducing the age below 35 years has been challenged. The learned Single Judge has rejected the challenge by stating that it is wholly misplaced and misconceived. It is concluded that the suicidal bomb attack on the Indian Mission in Afghanistan is the reason for change SOP and accordingly, recommendation has been made for deploying the persons who are below 35 years of age. The appellants cannot insist that they must be detailed to Afghanistan. The learned Single Judge also raised a doubt with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with costs. 3. We have heard learned Senior counsel for the appellants at some length and have perused the record with his able assistance. We are left with no doubt that the appellants cannot claim the detailment out of their cadre to United Nation Mission in Afghanistan or elsewhere as a matter of right. Merely because they were selected under the unamended criteria which has later on been amended reducing the age limit, would not necessarily confer a right on them that they must be detailed. In our view, the learned Single Judge has adopted the right course because in such like matters the LPA No. 1526 of 2011 -4- interference of this Court may not be pertinent. Therefore, we express our agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is wholly without merit and does not warrant admission. 4. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 25, 2011 Atul