Army officers

That case before the court pertained to promotional avenues for army personnel.

As a consequence of the top court judgement, the petitioners said, they were non-operational officers for promotional avenues. Hence, they argued, the same classification should be followed for the purpose of deployment and postings, too.

The Centre opposed the petitioners and cited the oath administered to army personnel. Transfers, the government submitted, were not only a necessary incident of service but an essential condition of service. Postings are a part of their regimental duty and not dependent on their willingness, it said.

The court accepted the Centre’s stand and held that irrespective of the service to which the officers are commissioned, personnel are duty-bound to serve wherever they are ordered to.

“This Oath is administered to all personnel, irrespective of the Arm of Service to which they are commissioned. As per the oath, personnel are duty bound to serve wherever they are ordered to,” the court said.

To accept the contention that the ASC has been referred to as a non-operational unit for service promotion purposes and the same rationale must be extended to postings would disturb the entire structure and operations of the army, the court held.

The army does make an effort to give soldiers postings of their choice, keeping the organisational interests in mind, two army officers said.

“However, it is not always pos- sible to post them where they want to go considering the size of the army. It’s a transparent process,” one of them said.