Case: MAJ. AMOD KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

The Petitioners are personnel belonging to the Army Service Corps (The Petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 918 and 1077/2017 are Officers holding the ranks of Major and LieutenantColonel 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. 918/2017Major 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. 965/2017Sepoy 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. 1077/2017Lieutenant 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 vide Order dated September 15, 2017.

Court's reasoning:
he 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 inwith 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. To accept the prayers of the Petitioners merely on the basis of the contention that the ASC have been referred to asThe Petitioners have not made any submission that the postings are in violation of any statutory rules, executive, ates 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 number of its precedents6 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 mala fide on the part of the competent authority. This Court noted asscope of interference by the courts in regard to members of the armed forces is far more limited and 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 bePetitioners have not alleged any mala fide against the Respondents. Hence, the contentions of the Petitioners cannot be entertained.e ofUnion of India. v.. Thehave made a reference to the Oath administered to Officers and Sepoys alike at thesaid Oath is reproduced hereinbelow for(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 theUnion of Indiaand go wherever ordered, by land, sea or air, and that I will observe and obey all the commands of the President of theUnion of Indiaand the commands of any officer set above me, even to the peril of myis Oath is administered to all personnel,of the ArmIn view of the above discussion, the Petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference by this Court.