KAILASH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to include the petitioner in the second contingent to the United Nations (U.N.) Mission scheduled to leave in August, 2014.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he was enrolled in the Indian Army in the year 1994 and was promoted to the rank of Hawaldar in the year 2001. Based on its performance, the 9 Sikh Light Regiment was nominated for U.N. Mission and the Unit came to Delhi for necessary preparation for pre -induction of the Unit. The first contingent left in December 2013. The petitioner was found eligible and selected for the UN Mission second contingent, earlier scheduled to depart in June, 2014. As per the requisite procedure, upon request of the respondents, the petitioner tendered his Adverse Career Certificate and Willingness Certificate which was forwarded by the Unit on 15.03.2014. Having completed all pre -induction formalities including medical examination, passport, visa, issue of kit, government sanction for induction into U.N. Mission as the second contingent was to proceed in June 2014 itself but, due to administrative reasons, the move of the second contingent got delayed. In the interim, however, the petitioner came to know that he had been replaced in second contingent by respondent No. 6 since he (the petitioner) in the meanwhile, had been promoted to the rank of Naib Subedar with effect from 01.07.2014. The impugned letter stated that the petitioner's case had been taken up for promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar with effect from 01.07.2014 before his induction to the U.N. Mission, hence, the policy of 30th August, 2010/30th December,2011 in re: Policy SD -3 (UN) would not be applicable to the petitioner. Petitioner's representation dated 09.07.2014 whereby he requested that his unwillingness be accepted and that his name may not be taken off the UN Mission list did not yield positive result.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argues that when any person is due for promotion, he is required to tender an Unwillingness Certificate for promotion during deployment in the U.N. Mission and the deferment of promotion is accepted from such persons. As the petitioner could not leave for the U.N. mission due to administrative and logistic reasons, a purposive interpretation of the policy dated 30.08.2010 would be required to be given for such persons who could not be actually deployed. He further submits that U.N. Mission assignment is not a matter of normal posting and transfer for an Army personnel and they get such an opportunity rarely which not only provides the personnel the international exposure and an enhanced career profile but also gives them much enhanced monetary compensation and a feeling of pride. Thus, he submits that denial of such an opportunity to the petitioner is arbitrary and a wrong interpretation of the aforesaid policy.