Read Time: 05 minutes

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by two female Constables working at Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) seeking their redeployment to Afghanistan.

The division bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Amit Bansal observed that "The issues raised in the present petition are purely administrative in nature, with regard to deployment and re-deployment of personnel based at a foreign mission. Whether there is a requirement for services of the petitioners in Afghanistan cannot be assessed by the petitioners on their own on the basis of administrative and operational exigencies by the respondent alone and interference by Courts in the same is not permitted under the exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

The petitioners argued that they were posted in August, 2020 in the Embassy of India at Kabul, Afghanistan as Security Assistants. The tenure of the petitioners was to be for a term of two years. However, on 13th June, 2021, the petitioners were re-deployed back to India.

The petitioners claim that they are entitled to a stay of two years in Afghanistan and therefore they have been prematurely re-deployed to India only after serving for a period of ten months.

The petitioners further contended that there is a requirement of the petitioners in Kabul for the purpose of frisking of children and females visiting the Embassy of India at Kabul, Afghanistan as well as for the purpose of security, and the petitioners are duly trained for the same.

 The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been arbitrarily de-inducted from Afghanistan while non-General Duty Female personnel, not trained to perform security functions have been retained.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents along with the official from the respondent ITBP submitted that there are three Constables (General Duty)(Female) still working at the Embassy of India at Kabul, who are performing the same functions as the petitioners were performing.

It was further submitted that the said three personnel have completed lesser tenure of posting in Afghanistan than the two petitioners herein and therefore, in terms of the Policy document, they have to be retained in Afghanistan.

Hearing the parties the Court dismissed the petition and observed that “The petitioners being part of an armed force like ITBP have no vested right to be posted in Afghanistan, and can be posted anywhere based on requirement as assessed by the respondent.”

Case Title: Rani Devi and Anr vs ITBP