The applicant had asked the High Court to challenge the May 15 detachment order. (File)
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court said on Monday that it should not interfere with assignments, especially the armed forces, as someone has to go and serve in places like Ladakh, parts of the northeast and the Andaman Islands. and Nicobar.
The Supreme Court said this during the hearing of an appeal filed by an army colonel against the Delhi High Court order which requested him and his wife, who is also a colonel in the army, to join their new posts within 15 days.
The petitioner, who is an officer in the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) department, had asked the High Court to challenge the May 15 detachment order and alleged that the decision to transfer him and his wife to remote locations had been taken as he had deposited it. a statutory complaint against the JAG and others.
He had challenged his assignment to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands from Jodhpur in Rajasthan and had argued that his wife was posted to Bathinda in the Punjab.
At the hearing in the higher court on Monday, the applicant’s lawyer told a bench led by Judge DY Chandrachud that the distance between Bhatinda and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands was over 3,500 km.
Senior lawyer Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, said the two officers had a four-and-a-half-year-old child and had taken charge of their respective places.
Mr Kumar told the judiciary that the petitioner had to apply for voluntary retirement because of this transfer.
“If the armed forces say they are opposed to a joint posting to Delhi, it can be tough, but someone also has to go to Andaman and Nicobar,” said the bench, also including Judges Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee.
“When it comes to the detachment of army officers, we must not intervene. In places like Ladakh, the North East and Andaman, someone has to leave,” observed the bench, adding: “In the postings, especially in the armed forces, we must not interfere. “.
“These are very difficult cases. It is very difficult for us to say that to reconsider this,” said the bench.
After the high court found it was unwilling to intervene, Mr Kumar said he would withdraw the plea.
<< Ranjit Kumar, avocat principal comparaissant au nom du requérant, sollicite l'autorisation du tribunal de retirer la requête de congé spécial afin de permettre au requérant de poursuivre une procédure indépendante concernant sa demande de retrait de la demande de retraite volontaire >>, bench noted in its order.
“In terms of the above request, the petition for special leave is dismissed as withdrawn, leaving the applicant the possibility of pursuing the remedies available,” he said.
The High Court, while dealing with the petition, said that the military gave reasons in its order denying the officer’s request / representation for spousal coordinated detachment and that no grounds of bad faith or violation of a rule had not been established for the court. interfere in the matter.
The military had informed the High Court that the two senior officers can only be posted together in New Delhi, but this cannot be done as the JAG department has only 23 colonels against the authorized strength of 40 and static headquarters like New Delhi. are less of a priority than on-the-job training when assignments are considered.
He had said that the couple’s secondment to New Delhi “will be to the detriment of maintaining vacancies in the training HQs, which is not in the interest of the organization”.
In its response to the High Court, the military also said that since the couple’s marriage in 2008, they had received three coordinated messages from their spouses on their requests and “every effort has been made to post them both in the same post “.
