AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.M. Lai and B.K. Sharma, JJ.—Heard Shri R.N. Singh for the Petitioner on the question of admission and stay.
By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Order dated 11.09.1995 communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 08.10.1995 (Annexures-2 and 3 respectively to the petition), whereby the Petitioner has been transferred to Rarngarh (Bihar) from Roorkee.
The Petitioner is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army. The impugned transfer order has been challenged being unreasonable and volatile of Article 14 of the Constitution and also being passed against the guidelines of the Army Act.
Shri R.N. Singh contends that on army personnel also the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution apply. He has placed reliance upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in Maj. C.V.V. Reddy v. Team Leader. Army Team, Bharat Dynamics Ltd. and Ors. 1992 (41 SLR 549.
We are afraid of this proposition. We may observe that in view of the Apex Court decision rendered in Ram Sarup Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another, , the provisions of the Army Act cannot be challenged on the ground that the same affects fundamental right Under Part III of the Constitution. Article 33 of the Constitution has conferred powers on the Parliament to determine, by law, as to what extent the rights conferred by Part 111 of the Constitution, in their application to the persons subject to that Act, be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.
We may, however, observe that in view of the Apex Court''s decision rendered in Ram Sarup (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision relied upon by Sri R.N. Singh is of no avail to futile Petitioners. In Ram Sarup (supra), speaking for the Bench, Hon''ble Mr. Justice Raghubar Dayal has held that each and every provision of the Act is a law made by Parliament and that if any such provision tends to affect the fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, that provision does not, on that account, become void, as lt must be taken that Parliament has thereby, In the exercise of its powers under Article 33 of the Constitution, made the requisite modification to affect the respective fundamental right. Thus, the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution in their application to the persons subjected to the Army Act, 1950, can be restricted or abrogated by the Parliament, and therefore, the same cannot be applied to the army personnel�s In violation of the provisions of Army Act. No doubt, army personnel�s are not denuded of the constitutional privileges as guaranteed to the citizens, nonetheless, the legal position is that the army personnel�s are subjected to strictest form of discipline.
Learned Counsel further submits that Petitioner has made a representation dated 09.10.1995 (Annexure-4 to the petition) to the authority concerned, Under the provisions of Regulation 361 of Defense Services Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations).
If the representation referred to above has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Regulations, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Army Act and the Regulations.
Thus, this petition having no merits deserves to be dismissed.
The petition is accordingly dismissed in liming.