Karnataka High Court Rejected Plea Of IAF Officer’s; Writ Court Cannot Undertake Deeper Examination Of Defense Transfer Policy

The Karnataka High Court in the case Ranagaswamy B T And Union of India and Others observed and has dismissed the appeal filed by the Indian Air Force Personnel questioning his transfer posting order dated December 29, 2022.

The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit in the case observed and has dismissed the appeal filed by Rangaswamy B T wherein it challenged the order of the single judge bench which had rejected the petition moved by him questioning the posting order.

It has also been argued by the appellant before the court that the impugned order has brought about an unjust result and a lot of hardship will be occasioned to his client if the same is not set at naught. Thus, the appellant in the case seeks an extension of tenure for two years as the criminal case faced by him was yet to be disposed of by the court.

The said plea is opposed by the central government wherein it is stated that the subject matter relates to the posting of an employee in the Defence Service namely, Indian Air Force; the policy of request posting cannot be invoked as the matter of right, a host of factors entering the fray of decision making.

Therefore, the appellant in the case had given an undertaking that the compassionate posting was being confined to a period of only two years and thus, no extension could be sought for.

The court in the case noted that the appellant had already reported for duty pursuant to the posting order and then it referred to the policy which mandates that a request posting will be limited in tenure and that no extension from posting beyond the permitted tenure will be considered on a request posting.

The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that this is absolutely consistent with the Defense requirements and a writ court cannot undertake a deeper examination of the matter.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal wherein stating that it is devoid of merits.
The counsel, Advocate M L Suvrna for Advocate Putte Gowda K appeared for the Appellant.
The counsel, Advocate Madhukar Deshpande represented the Respondents.