Can't interfere in administrative decisions: Delhi High Court dismisses plea by ITBP personnel for re-deployment in Afghanistan

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a challenge to the transfer of two women constables of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) from the Indian Mission at Afghanistan to India, observing that the Court cannot interfere with the ITBP's administrative decisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [Rani Delhi & And v. Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP)].The two constables had moved a plea for their re-deployment in Afghanistan at the Embassy of India at Kabul, Afghanistan as security assistants..Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Amit Bansal held: “The petitioners being part of an armed force like ITBP have no vested right to be posted in Afghanistan, and can be posted anywhere based on requirement as assessed by the respondent (Indo-Tibetian Border Police).”.It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that that they were posted in August, 2020 at Indian embassy and that they had a tenure of two years. However, on June 13, 2021, they were deployed back in India..The petitioners contended that they were entitled to a stay for two years in Afghanistan and that they were prematurely re-deployed to India only after having served 10 months. .It was also asserted that there was a requirement for the petitioners to be deployed in Kabul for the purpose of frisking children and women visiting the Indian embassy there, in addition to the purposes of security..The petitioners stated that they were duly trained for these roles and that they have been arbitrarily de-inducted from Afghanistan while “non-general duty” women personnel, not trained to perform such security functions, had been retained..The petitioners, therefore, had sought their re-deployment in place of the officials who had served a maximum period of service besides seeking non-removal from the panel of the personnel to be deployed at Afghanistan. .They also sought directions to the ITBP to prepare a list of personnel including the petitioners, who had served a minimum period of service in Afghanistan in ascending order for the purposes of re-deployment, in place of the officials who had a served maximum period of service, as and when vacancies arise..They also urged the High Court to issue directions for non suspension of their diplomatic passports and visas..The counsel for the ITBP submitted that there were three women constables (general duty) who still worked at the Indian embassy in Kabul. He pointed out that these constables were performing the same functions as the petitioners and that they had completed a lesser tenure of posting in Afghanistan, compared to the petitioners. Therefore, the ITBP contended that in terms of the policy document, they had to be retained in Afghanistan..The Court, in turn, declined to entertain the ITBP personnel's challenge, noting that that the issues raised were purely administrative in nature..“The issues raised in the present petition are purely administrative in nature, with regard to deployment and re-deployment of personnel based at a foreign mission. Whether there is a requirement for services of the petitioners in Afghanistan cannot be assessed by the petitioners on their own. The said decisions have to be taken on the basis of administrative and operational exigencies by the respondent alone and interference by Courts in the same is not permitted under the exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India", the Court said. .The Court also noted that the ITBP has refuted the petitioners' contention that there were no other personnel at the Indian embassy in Kabul who were trained to perform certain security functions.“Moreover, as submitted by the counsel for the respondent, the re-deployment of the petitioners is in terms of the Policy document dated 11th February, 2021 as the three Constables (General Duty)(Female) currently deployed in Afghanistan have completed lesser tenure than the petitioners in Afghanistan,” the Court added, before dismissing the petition as devoid of merit. .The petitioners were represented by advocate Aditya Gaur. Advocates Ajay Digpaul and R Digpaul represented the ITBP..[Read Order]