LEGAL ISSUE: Whether personnel of the Army Service Corps (ASC) can be posted to operational areas.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Maj. Amod Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr.
Judgment Date: September 6, 2018
Date of the Judgment: September 6, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 770
Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Indu Malhotra, J.
Can personnel of the Army Service Corps (ASC) be posted to operational units? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the scope of postings within the Indian Army. The court considered whether the ASC, traditionally a logistical support arm, could be assigned to operational roles, and if such postings violated the rights of the personnel. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Indu Malhotra, with the opinion authored by Justice Indu Malhotra.
Case Background
The petitioners, Major Amod Kumar, Sepoy Prahalad Singh, and Lieutenant Colonel Shubhankar Mishra, are personnel of the Army Service Corps (ASC). Major Amod Kumar was posted to 44 Rashtriya Rifles as a Mechanical Transport Officer on July 20, 2017. Sepoy Prahalad Singh, trained for driving special vehicles, was posted to 4 Rashtriya Rifles on September 4, 2017. Lieutenant Colonel Shubhankar Mishra was posted to 694 Coy ASC (Tank and Transport) as an Officer Commanding on September 15, 2017. All three challenged these postings, arguing that they belong to a non-operational unit and should not be assigned to operational areas.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 20, 2017 | Major Amod Kumar posted to 44 Rashtriya Rifles as a Mechanical Transport Officer. |
| September 4, 2017 | Sepoy Prahalad Singh posted to 4 Rashtriya Rifles. |
| September 15, 2017 | Lieutenant Colonel Shubhankar Mishra posted to 694 Coy ASC (Tank and Transport) as an Officer Commanding. |
| September 6, 2018 | Supreme Court dismisses the writ petitions. |
Arguments
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- The petitioners argued that they belong to the ASC, which was classified as a ‘non-operational’ unit by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary & Ors. [(2016) 4 SCC 236].
- They contended that since the ASC was deemed ‘non-operational’ for promotional purposes in the Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case, this classification should also apply to deployment and postings.
- The petitioners claimed that ASC personnel are as vulnerable as personnel from other corps in operational areas and therefore, the preference given to ‘operational’ corps in promotions is unjustified.
- They argued that the posting orders to serve in operational units/areas violated their Fundamental Rights and principles of natural justice.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution are not maintainable as there was no violation of Fundamental Rights.
- They submitted that the petitioners have an alternate remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
- The respondents stated that transfers are a necessary condition of service, and employees do not have a right to be posted in a particular place.
- They argued that the reliance on Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case was misplaced, as that case dealt with the allocation of vacancies for promotions and not postings.
- The respondents clarified that the Army does not have ‘non-combatant’ or ‘non-operational’ personnel, except for medical personnel. All corps, including the ASC, have distinct operational roles.
- They stated that the postings were in accordance with career planning policies and did not violate any statutory rules.
- The respondents argued that the petitioners did not allege any mala fides or vindictiveness on the part of the posting authority.
- The respondents contended that the petitioners’ claim of being ‘non-operational’ would undermine the Army’s organizational effectiveness and morale.
Submissions of the Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Petitioners) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Classification of ASC | ✓ ASC is ‘non-operational’ based on Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case. ✓ This classification should apply to postings. |
✓ All Army personnel are operational, except medical personnel. ✓ Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case was about promotions, not postings. |
| Violation of Rights | ✓ Posting to operational areas violates Fundamental Rights. ✓ Preference for operational corps in promotions is unfair. |
✓ No violation of Fundamental Rights. ✓ Transfers are a condition of service. |
| Maintainability of Petition | ✓ Writ petitions under Article 32 are not maintainable. ✓ Alternate remedy available before the Armed Forces Tribunal. |
|
| Legality of Postings | ✓ Postings violate natural justice. | ✓ Postings are as per policies and do not violate any rules. ✓ No mala fides alleged against the posting authority. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the present Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution are maintainable?
- Whether the action of the Respondents in posting the Petitioners and members of the ASC to ‘operational’ areas/units are valid in view of the decision of this Court in Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case (supra)?
- Whether the postings of the Petitioners to operational areas are violative of statutory rules, executive policies or instructions?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Maintainability of Writ Petitions under Article 32 | Not Maintainable | Petitioners failed to demonstrate violation of Fundamental Rights. Alternate remedy available before the Armed Forces Tribunal. |
| Validity of posting ASC personnel to operational areas | Valid | Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case was related to promotions, not postings. All Army personnel, including ASC, have operational roles. |
| Violation of statutory rules, executive policies, or instructions | No Violation | Petitioners failed to show any violation of statutory rules, executive policies, or instructions. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
Case Laws:
- Union of India & Anr. v. Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary & Ors. [(2016) 4 SCC 236] – The Supreme Court of India. This case was considered in the context of allocation of vacancies for promotion to the rank of Colonel and the court had observed that the ASC is a non-operational unit.
- Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. [(2005) 7 SCC 227] – The Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to emphasize that the scope of interference in matters of transfer of members of the armed forces is limited.
- Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar [1991 Supp (2) SCC 659] – The Supreme Court of India.
- Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [(1993) 4 SCC 357] – The Supreme Court of India.
- National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan [(2001) 8 SCC 574] – The Supreme Court of India.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Used |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India & Anr. v. Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary & Ors. [(2016) 4 SCC 236] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The Court held that the observations in this case regarding ASC being ‘non-operational’ were in the context of promotions and not postings. |
| Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. [(2005) 7 SCC 227] | Supreme Court of India | Followed. The Court relied on this case to emphasize the limited scope of judicial interference in transfer matters of armed forces personnel. |
| Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar [1991 Supp (2) SCC 659] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to, as a precedent on the scope of interference of Courts in transfer matters. |
| Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [(1993) 4 SCC 357] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to, as a precedent on the scope of interference of Courts in transfer matters. |
| National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan [(2001) 8 SCC 574] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to, as a precedent on the scope of interference of Courts in transfer matters. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ submission that ASC is ‘non-operational’ based on Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case. | Rejected. The court clarified that the observations in Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case were specific to promotions and not applicable to postings. |
| Petitioners’ submission that posting to operational areas violates their Fundamental Rights. | Rejected. The court held that postings and transfers are a necessary incident of service and do not violate Fundamental Rights. |
| Respondents’ submission that writ petitions under Article 32 are not maintainable. | Accepted. The court agreed that the petitioners had an alternate remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal. |
| Respondents’ submission that transfers are a condition of service and employees do not have a right to a specific posting. | Accepted. The court upheld the authority of the competent authority to determine postings. |
| Respondents’ submission that all Army personnel are operational, except medical personnel. | Accepted. The court recognized that ASC has a distinct operational role. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court distinguished the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary & Ors. [(2016) 4 SCC 236], stating that the observations made about the ASC being ‘non-operational’ were in the context of promotional avenues and not applicable to postings.
- The Court relied on Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India & Ors. [(2005) 7 SCC 227], which held that the scope of interference in matters of transfer of members of the armed forces is very limited.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:
- The Court emphasized the distinction between promotional avenues and postings, clarifying that the classification of ASC as ‘non-operational’ in Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case was specific to promotions and did not extend to postings.
- The Court highlighted that all personnel in the Army, except medical personnel, have operational roles, and the ASC plays a vital role in logistical support.
- The Court upheld the principle that transfers are a necessary incident of service and that personnel do not have a right to a specific posting.
- The Court noted the limited scope of judicial interference in transfer matters of armed forces personnel, absent any violation of statutory rules or mala fides.
- The Court also considered the oath administered to all personnel, which requires them to serve wherever ordered.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Distinction between promotion and posting | 30% |
| Operational role of ASC | 25% |
| Transfers as a necessary condition of service | 20% |
| Limited scope of judicial interference | 15% |
| Oath of service | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 30% |
| Law (Consideration of legal aspects) | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
Issue 1: Maintainability of Writ Petitions
Reasoning: No violation of Fundamental Rights demonstrated; alternate remedy available
Decision: Writ Petitions are not maintainable
Issue 2: Validity of Posting ASC Personnel to Operational Areas
Reasoning: Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case on promotions, not postings; ASC has operational role
Decision: Postings are valid
Issue 3: Violation of Statutory Rules, Policies
Reasoning: No violation shown by Petitioners
Decision: Postings do not violate any rules or policies
The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations.
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the postings of ASC personnel to operational areas. The Court reasoned that the classification of the ASC as ‘non-operational’ in the context of promotions in Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case did not extend to postings. The Court emphasized that all personnel in the Army, except medical personnel, have operational roles and that transfers are a necessary incident of service. The Court also noted the limited scope of judicial interference in transfer matters of armed forces personnel.
The Court stated, “The Petitioners have not made any submission that the postings are in violation of any statutory rules, executive policies or instructions.”
The Court further added, “The scope 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 Court observed, “As per the Oath, personnel are duty bound to serve wherever they are ordered to.”
There were no dissenting opinions.
Key Takeaways
- Personnel of the Army Service Corps (ASC) can be posted to operational areas.
- The classification of the ASC as ‘non-operational’ in the context of promotions does not apply to postings.
- Courts have a limited scope of interference in transfer matters of armed forces personnel.
- All personnel in the Army, except medical personnel, have operational roles.
- Transfers are a necessary incident of service, and personnel do not have a right to a specific posting.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that personnel of the Army Service Corps (ASC) can be posted to operational areas, and the classification of ASC as ‘non-operational’ in the context of promotions does not extend to postings. The judgment also reinforces the principle of limited judicial interference in transfer matters of armed forces personnel. This judgment clarifies the scope of postings within the Indian Army and ensures that the ASC can be deployed in operational roles as required.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, thereby upholding the postings of Army Service Corps (ASC) personnel to operational areas. The Court clarified that the ASC’s classification as ‘non-operational’ in the context of promotions does not restrict their deployment in operational roles. The judgment reinforces the principle that transfers are a necessary condition of service and that courts should exercise restraint in interfering with the decisions of competent authorities in the armed forces.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories:
- Army Service Corps
- Operational Postings
- Transfer Policy
Parent Category: Armed Forces Act
Child Category: Posting of Personnel, Armed Forces Act
FAQ
Q: Can personnel of the Army Service Corps (ASC) be posted to operational areas?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has clarified that personnel of the ASC can be posted to operational areas. The classification of the ASC as ‘non-operational’ for promotion purposes does not restrict their deployment in operational roles.
Q: What is the scope of judicial interference in transfer matters of armed forces personnel?
A: The Supreme Court has emphasized that courts have a limited scope of interference in transfer matters of armed forces personnel. Unless there is a demonstrable violation of statutory rules or an instance of mala fide, courts should not interfere with the decisions of the competent authorities.
Q: Do Army personnel have a right to be posted to a specific place?
A: No, Army personnel do not have a right to be posted to a specific place. Transfers are considered a necessary incident of service, and the competent authority has the power to determine the place of posting.
Q: What was the main issue in the case of Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary?
A: The main issue in Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary’s Case was the allocation of additional vacancies created in the Selection-Grade rank of Colonel amongst the various Corps of the Indian Army. The court had observed that the ASC is a non-operational unit for the purposes of promotion.