MOHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.2871 and 14458 of 2011. The petitioners in these cases have approached the Court to challenge the Standard Operating Procedure (''SOP'' for short) as framed by the respondents to make selection of persons for detailing on U.N. Mission. It will be open to question if such an issue would be justiciable. Apparently, there is no right for a person serving in force like Indo-Tibet Border Police Force (''ITBP'' for short) to ask for his detailment on U.N. Mission. The action of the petitioners to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court to seek their detailment on U.N. Mission, thus, appears to be misplaced and misconceived. It is further doubtful if any employee can challenge SOP formulated to lay down or form a criteria for such detailment depending upon the requirement of the organisation.

(2.) At the outset, the counsel was, therefore, asked to make submissions in regard to the rights of the petitioners to maintain these writ petitions. The counsel could not make any meaningful submission to show that the petitioners have any right to be detailed, for which they can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In addition, the counsel has not been able to show that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to deal with the prayer as no cause of action has arisen under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners are belonging to different States and presently are also not serving under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) The petitioners have averred in the petition that troops from different cadres of ITBP are selected for security of Indian Mission Abroad/ for deployment of troops on U.N. Mission abroad or on U.N. Assignments. A SOP was framed by the respondents to regulate such selections on 31.8.2007. In one of the paragraphs of the SOP, it is provided that list of the selected persons shall be normally valid for a period of one year from the date of declaration or finalising the next select list, whichever is earlier. As per the petitioners, a list/panel was prepared and the respondents detailed/deployed 125 personnels of different cadres on 24.8.2010. Another 35 personnels were selected for deployment for 2 years on 10.10.2010, out of the panel so prepared. With effect from 31.11.2010, the respondents have revised the eligibility of the persons for the purpose of selection and have issued a new SOP. Copy of the same has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P- 4. As per the petitioners, no afresh panel has been prepared but the new SOP has been made applicable arbitrarily to the petitioners and the names of the petitioners have been cancelled from the panel of the seniority list in violation of Para 7 of the earlier SOP. Some of the petitioners filed representations on 24.1.2011. When no action was taken, the petitioners have filed the present petition by invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation, besides pleading violation of Para 7 of earlier SOP, which is also annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1.