* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: August 3, 2022

Pronounced on: August 22, 2022

+ W.P.(C) 11942/2021 & [Link].17370/2022

SGT. NAVNEET KUMAR SINGH (977823-F) ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. C. Mohan Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
A.K. Pandey, Mr. N. P. Singh and
Ms. Neha, Advs.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Wg.
CDR Manoj Kumar Sharma, IAF,
Junior Warrant Officer, SMPAL, IAF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

JUDGMENT
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
1. Petitioner claims he was enrolled in the Indian Air Force (hereinafter
referred “IAF”) as Outstanding Sportsman (Cricket) in Group „Y‟ Adm.
Astt. (GD) Trade in June 2016. After completing training, petitioner was
posted to 3 Wg, IAF (Palam Station) for sports duties w.e.f. 31.12.2017 and
went on to represent the IAF in Services Cricket Team in Ranji Trophy
Matches between 2017 till 2020.

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 1 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]
 2. However, during this time, petitioner was unable to appear for
examination in University, so the Air Force Sports Control Board
(hereinafter referred as “AFSCB”) assisted him from time to time; on
09.03.2021 his Cricket Coach asked him to run, unable to do so due to knee
injury, same was considered as indiscipline on his part and despite being
best opener in 2018-19, he was not selected for 2019-20. Since selected as
sportsman for Sports Duty, petitioner was never attached to any Trade Duty
till 12.03.2021, however, he was sent on Trade Duty to HQTC(U),
Bangalore vide first Posting Order by respondent no.2 (hereinafter referred
“first Posting Order”) for around 4½ months and thereafter he joined back
his parent 3 Wg, IAF (Palam Station) on 06.09.2021. On 07.09.2021
respondent no.2 again issued the second Posting Order to 4 Wing against the
petitioner (hereinafter referred “second Posting Order”).
3. Thus the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
following reliefs for quashing the second Posting Order, without challenging
the first Posting Order to Bangalore, which already stood complied, as
under:-
“(a) Issue the writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction against the
respondents to quash the posting order dated 7th
September, 2021, issued by the respondent no. 2 for
trade duty of petitioner at Agra.

(b) Issue the writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction to the
respondent no. 2 to not to transfer the petitioner

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 2 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]
 from sports to general trade. duty and consequently
direct thereof to the Respondent no. 3, secretary
AFSCB (Air Force Sports Control Board) for
inclusion of petitioner in Sport unit wing 3 Palam of
IAF.

(c) Issue the writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction against the
Respondent no. 3 to take appropriate measure for
petitioner to take part in the schedule matches from
"SERVICES" team in the Ranji Trophy and other
Cricket matches.”

4. Relying on various documents petitioner contends, being recruited by

IAF as sportsman in Sports Category, respondents cannot attach him to
General Trade Duty without assigning any reasons, memo or written charges
and without giving opportunity to defend. Moreover, by attaching him to
Bangalore his opportunity of playing cricket was taken away and he‟s not
been allowed to participate in the inter-services tournament for selection in
Ranji Team. He is an outstanding cricketer as per ESPN rating and assigning
Trade Duty in Agra shall completely jeopardize his cricketing career. In
rejoinder and during the course of final arguments, learned senior counsel
for petitioner places reliance upon the “Training and Career Progression
Policy: Sportsmen” dated 14.12.2014 and 30.10.2019, filed by respondents
(hereinafter referred as “Sports Policies”), which stipulate the procedure for
reversion of Sports Supernumerary (hereinafter referred to as “SS”) and for

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 3 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]
 the first time submits that the recommendation for change of duty is a major
penalty; and places reliance upon Union of India v A.D. Nargolkar (2019)
13 SCC 723 to contend that based upon admissions by petitioner the
imposition of major penalty is harsh and wrong.
5. In response, respondents vide their common counter affidavit filed
alongwith various documents, question the maintainability of the present
writ petition contending that the petitioner, without exhausting the statutory
remedy available for Redressal of Grievances under Section 26 of The Air
Force Act, 1950 against the decision of the Competent Authority has directly
approached this Court. Respondents further place reliance upon the 2 Sports
Policies; and contend that the AFSCB, which rendered all possible support
to petitioner, is a supreme body for planning and conducting sports activities
at all levels with an aim to improve the standards of IAF, has been conferred
various Awards. The said AFSCB recommended posting of petitioner for
General Trade Duty based on critical evaluation by the Board of Officers
(hereinafter referred as “BOO”) comprising of an Independent Presiding
Officer and Representatives of Air HQ (DPA), which led to passing of the
second Posting Order.
6. Respondents also contend that petitioner cannot compromise the
Military Code of Conduct and is bound by service requirements and move to
posting for Trade Duty; and that transfer is a service exigency; and in IAF
discipline and morals of Air Warriors is the primary epitome regardless of
performance, thus IAF cannot conceptualize with it adversely affecting and
disseminating wrong message. Respondents have filed relevant documents
to show that petitioner was a non-performer and that the selection of
Services Cricket Team comprising of representatives from Army, Navy and

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 4 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]
 Air is based on merit and performance; Respondents further contend that
petitioner has a history of indiscipline; it was after counselling on
03.03.2021 and based on the report and steps by higher authorities that a
decision was taken on 08.03.2021; respondents filed relevant medical
records of the Sick Bay to show that there exist no sick records/ reports in
respect of any knee injury for the period claimed; petitioner, despite being
given sufficient chances and warning letters, failed to improve; and
petitioner in his own handwriting accepted his mistakes.
7. Lastly learned counsel for respondents places reliance upon Cpl.
Sandeep Krishnan UK v Union of India & Ors. 2021 SCC Online Del
5028; SGT Aadesh Kumar v Union of India & Ors. 2020 SCC Online Del
1967; Amresh Kumar Yadav v UOI & Ors. 2010 SCC Online Del 3917; and
Major General J.K. Bansal v Union of India (2005) 7 SCC 227 contending
that posting in Armed Forces, including of Airman, is within the exclusive
purview of Air Force and Courts are reluctant to interfere with them as
transfer is an incident of service.
8. Having heard the learned senior counsel for appellant and the learned
counsel for respondents and after going through the documents on record we
now proceed, albeit after addressing with the issue of maintainability of this
petition before us, as under.
9. Vide the averments in petition, the petitioner has been unable to show
that respondents have violated his fundamental rights at any stage
whatsoever and if so, in what manner. On the contrary it is the case of the
petitioner that the AFSCB assisted him from time to time when he was
unable to appear for examination; he was given counselling by respondents;
and he had himself accepted his mistakes. The only act of malafide, a vague

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 5 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]
 reference, canvassed by petitioner is against his Cricket Coach, who
attributed a wrongful act of indiscipline on 09.03.2021, when petitioner was
unable to run due to knee injury despite his asking. In view of the above, the
proper remedy for redressal of any such grievance(s) against respondents, it
was for petitioner to avail the statutory remedy under Section 26 of The Air
Force Act, 1950 before the appropriate forum instead of directly
approaching this Court.
10. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has raised other grounds also,
we will now proceed to deal with them in the foregoing paragraphs.
11. The petitioner, once enrolled in IAF as Outstanding Sportsman
(Cricket) in Group „Y‟ Adm. Astt. (GD) Trade, is governed by 2 Sports
Policies, which mention as under:-
“In order to make cutting edge to IAF teams in the Inter
Services Championships and to make IAF into a formidable
sporting force a policy for “Recruitment of outstanding
sportsmen in IAFB” was formulated vide AirHQ/C
40901/1/3/PA-I dated 24 May 2005. … … … ……… … ... …
… … … … … … … … … … … … … Barring a few, these
sportsmen would invariably on sports duties for most part of
their service career, initially as players and later as Coaches
and Physical Conditioners for Command/ Air Force teams
subject to medical fitness and efficiency in sports discipline.
Hence, their utility in IAF would mainly be in the field of
sports throughout their services career rather than in their
allotted trades.”

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 6 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]
 So the underlying purpose of both policies dated 14.12.2014 and
30.10.2019 is for IAF to recruit sportsman like petitioner in Group „Y‟ Adm.
Astt. (GD) Trade in various Sports for providing enhancement to the IAF
teams to make them more powerful and capable. As mentioned therein,
except few selected ones, though such sportsmen like petitioner would be on
sports duties, retention and continuing utility of such sportsmen like
petitioner in IAF, mainly in the field of sports, very much depends upon the
medical fitness and performance efficiency in the respective sports, Cricket
herein. Thus, to remain on Sports Duty, petitioner was/ is bound to maintain
medical fitness and perform efficiently at all stages of his service career in
complete adherence to the 2 Sports Polices, for which petitioner is required
to maintain discipline at all times, more so whence it is not a matter of right
to continue on Sports Duty throughout career.
12. We may note again that admittedly prior to issuing the second Posting
Order, respondents had earlier issued the unchallenged first Posting Order,
in compliance whereof petitioner proceeded to Bangalore. Having accepted
and abided by the said Posting Order, petitioner is estopped from
challenging such other subsequent alike Posting Order(s) issued by
respondents for similar reasons, much less the second Posting Order by way
of the present writ petition.
13. The second Posting Order transferring the petitioner, as he was
repeatedly acting in defiance of the 2 Sports Policies, does not involve
imposition of a „major penalty‟ as wrongly claimed by petitioner before us.
Having held so, we need not dwell, factually or legally, upon the issue, any
further. Reliance upon Nargolkar (supra) which is a case dealing with an
apology letter and a Court of Enquiry, is not applicable to the facts of this

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 7 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]
 case because in the present case petitioner has himself accepted his mistakes
on more than one occasion and as there was no Court of Enquiry involved
here.
14. The petitioner has not alleged any sort of bias or malafide or
vindictiveness to show any negative act on the part of respondents which
prompted them to issue the second Posting Order. Having said that, we
cannot skip to note, once again, that though there is a vague reference of
malafide on the part of his Cricket Coach but the petitioner has neither
arrayed him as a party in this writ petition nor filed any particulars of any
kind in support of any malafides nor argued anything before us. Thus,
malafides though alleged have not been proved.
15. The repeated acts of indiscipline by petitioner were in complete
defiance of the 2 Sports Policies. Being mindful that the same would be
detrimental to the Cricket Team and IAF, to safeguard their interest
respondents issued the second Posting Order, more so, whence despite being
given repeated opportunities, i.e. warnings, counseling and like, petitioner
was unable to rectify them and whence he himself admitted to few such acts
of indiscipline. In view thereof and coupled with the fact that petitioner was
also unfit, a non-performer and as the respondents are not bound to continue
him on Sports Duty, respondents rightly issued the second Posting Order for
General Duty elsewhere after taking all care and precautions and following
due procedure.
16. Further the second Posting Order issued by respondents is in
accordance with the 2 afore-noted Sports Policies and thus not violative of
any rules, regulations, circulars, instructions or like. The petitioner has been
unable to show otherwise or that the respondents are barred from issuing

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 8 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]
 Posting Orders like the one under challenge before us or that by virtue
thereof he is being wrongly transferred to Agra.
17. Issuance of such Posting Order resulting in transfer, especially for all
those pertaining to Armed Forces, is a necessary exigency of service which
cannot be, and in fact as held by various pronouncements, should not be
interfered by Court as the Armed Forces are the best judges to exercise their
own discretion. Posting Order resulting in transfer, which is in the absence
of a violation of any statutory requirements, rules, regulations or like and/ or
which is unless vitiated by some sort of bias or malafide or vindictiveness
further do not call for any interreference from Courts. Reliance is placed
upon Major General J.K. Bansal v Union of India (2005) 7 SCC 227
wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held:-
“12. It will be noticed that these decisions have been
rendered in the case of civilian employees or those who are
working in Public Sector Undertakings. The scope of
interference by courts in regard to members of armed forces
is far more limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities
to decide when and where a member of the armed forces
should be posted. The Courts should be extremely slow in
interfering with an order of transfer of such category of
persons and unless an exceptionally strong case is made out,
no interference should be made.”

18. Reliance is also placed upon Param Hansh Mishra v Union of India
& Ors. (2007) 143 DLT 302 (DB) wherein a Division Bench of this Court
has held:-

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 9 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]
 “2. Transfer of a public servant from one place to another
is made in the exigencies of service and are not interfered
with by the Courts unless they are shown to be incompetent
in the sense that the authority issuing the order has no
jurisdiction to do so or found to be vitiated by mala fides or
extraneous considerations. This is particularly so in the case
of Armed Forces, BSF, CRPF and ITBP, whose personnel
are duty-bound to serve at any place to which they may be
transferred. The legal position on the subject is settled by a
long line of decisions of the Supreme Court. Reference to
some of those decisions should in our view suffice.”

19. Similar view has been taken in CT/GD Jagat Ram & Ors. v Union of
India & Ors. 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7882 wherein once again a Division
Bench of this Court has held:-
“10. It is well settled that orders of transfer are not
ordinarily interfered with by the Court exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Shilpi Bose
Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1991 SC 532, the Supreme
Court held:

"Courts should not interfere with a transfer

order which are made in public interest and for
administrative reasons unless the transfer
orders are made in violation of any mandatory
statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 10 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]
 Government servant holding a transferable
post has not vested right to remain posted at
one place or the other, he is liable to be
transferred from one place to the other.
Transfer orders issued by the competent
authority do not violate any of his legal rights.
Even if a transfer order is passed in violation
of executive instructions or orders, the Courts
ordinarily should not interfere with the order
instead affected party should approach the
higher authorities in the Department."

14. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over orders of
transfer. Orders of transfer cannot be interfered with even if
the same are in violation of guidelines or executive
instructions, in the absence of malafides as held by the
Supreme Court in Shilpi Bose (supra).”

20. Reliance is also placed upon Cpl. Sandeep Krishnan UK v Union of

India & Ors. 2021 SCC Online Del 5028; SGT Aadesh Kumar v Union of
India & Ors. 2020 SCC Online Del 1967; Amresh Kumar Yadav v UOI &
Ors. 2010 SCC Online Del 3917 wherein also it has been held that matters
of transfer do not warrant interference by Courts.
21. That officers like petitioner recruited by IAF are to perform all kinds
of duties, including General Duty, for their entire service career is primary,

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 11 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]
 and that such officers like petitioner being recruited as sportsmen under
Sports Category for Sports Duty is secondary. Once recruited for Sports
Duty, sportsmen like petitioner shall remain governed by the 2 Sports
Policies till their entire service career and shall always be subject to medical
fitness and performance efficiency. Failure on the part of sportsmen, like
petitioner, would entail posting/ transfer for General Duty and it will be
inevitable. Else the whole purpose for recruitment of sportsmen, like
petitioner, for Sports Duty by IAF will be defeated, more so whence such
recruitment is for a particular reason and for a particular period.
22. Petitioner cannot loose sight of the age-old saying, “Once a
Sportsman always a Sportsman”, which though true is always with many
riders as it depends upon focus, discipline, devotion, dedication, fitness and
ability amongst many others.
23. Petitioner, even if recruited for Sports Duty will always be subject to
posting/ transfer. Being a Cricketer himself, petitioner ought to be aware that
though not the National Sport yet „Cricket‟ is by far the most popular Sport
played all across our Country. “True Sportsmen never give up.”, so his
posting/ transfer or the nature of duties assigned would not be an
impediment and irrespective of such place of posting/ transfer or duties, we
feel it would be easy for him to find his way through and move up the ranks
to represent the Services Cricket Team soon. Assigning Trade Duty can
neither take away his opportunity of playing Cricket nor jeopardize his
cricketing career.

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 12 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]
 24. Thus the second Posting Order issued by the respondent no.2, relating
to IAF, does not call for any interference by this Court.
25. The present writ petition alongwith pending application is accordingly
dismissed.

(SAURABH BANERJEE)
JUDGE

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)

JUDGE
AUGUST 22, 2022/So

Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11942/2021 Page 13 of 13

Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.08.2022
[Link]