Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court vide judgment dated May 30, 2023, dismissed a petition by persons serving the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) seeking direction for being posted at the Embassy of India in Afghanistan claiming parity with other similarly situated officers.

The petitioners were repatriated back to India on 17.08.2021 due to change in circumstances with the rise of the Taliban and the temporary closure of the Embassy of India.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while dismissing the petition, observed, “In the case in hand, petitioners have raised issued which are purely administrative in nature. With regard to deployment at a foreign mission, the de-induction and re-induction is upto respondents. The choice to repatriate or retain personnel is purely with the respondents, however, indisputably, as per the policy and without discrimination. By invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot interfere or direct the respondents for posting of any personnel. This Bench has no difference of opinion rendered by this Court in Sunil Kumar and Others (Supra). In the light of the fact that petitioners before this Court have exhausted the minimum period of three months for deployment in Indian Mission Afghanistan and the prerogative of deployment lies with the competent authorities, we find no merit in this petition.”

Thepetitioners had joined the Indo-Tibetan Border Police in the years 2001 and 2002 and were promoted to the rank of Head Constable in their respective branches.

Pursuant to respondents inviting applications from eligible serving personnel for posting to Indian Mission, Afghanistan on deputation, the petitioners applied and qualified the selection process.

The respondents vide order dated 18.10.2019 declared the names of 128 candidates, wherein petitioners were listed at Serial No. 14, 15, 16 and 17. The order also mentioned that the names of the successful candidates were being kept in a separate panel for a period of 3 years in terms of Para 10(A) of Standing Order No. 04/2017 dated 07.06.2017 and after expiry of 3 years, their names shall automatically stand removed from the panel.

Thereafter, vide Corrigendum and Addendum dated 11.02.2021, the respondents added Para-21 stating that in case any officer get repatriated prematurely from a mission within a period of 3 months on operation grounds, they shall be reconsidered for the same type of mission subject to mental and physical fitness, if the requirement is generated within a year.

It was the contention of petitioners that non-consideration of their case was in violation of the aforementioned orders dated 07.06.2017 and 11.02.2021. Further,  petitioners were already trained to handle foreign assignments and there was no justification to freshly recruit soldiers for the task in hand, who were inexperienced.

Case Title: HC GD Raghu and Ors. v. Union of India | WP (C) 16174 of 2022