National interest above any other interest including self-interest: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently observed that national interest is above any other interest including personal interest while refusing to entertain a prayer by an Army officer seeking extension of his present posting in Mumbai in order to give special medical treatment to his disabled son [Lt. Col. Anil Kumar Yadav v. Military Secretary Branch & Ors.]..A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik observed that as an officer associated with the defence of the country, it expects the petitioner, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army, to place national interest at the forefront.“We, countrymen, take pride in having a defence force comprised of personnel who are willing to lay down their lives without any sense of fear or feelings as to what might happen if they are not there. For them, national interest is above any other interest including self-interest. As an officer associated with the defence of the country, which is of paramount importance, we expected the petitioner to be rational in his approach and actions and place national interest in the forefront,” the order recorded..The factual matrix was that the petitioner had applied to the Military Secretary Branch (MSB) for extension of his current tenure in Mumbai to enable him to provide his disabled son special medical treatment which according to him was available only in Mumbai.The petitioner also sought choice of posting within 7 days failing which the posting order would be issued by the authority based on inputs available with it.When his extension was refused, the petitioner approached the High Court with the present petition.In 2016, a co-ordinate bench granted a stay on the MSB’s order which was extended from time to time, until it was vacated by another bench. Eventually, the Supreme Court restored the stay on the order of the MSB.Resultantly, the petitioner continued to stay in Mumbai..The High Court observed that while it is not being insensitive to the child’s needs, sentiments and sympathy could not be the basis to exercise its powers under writ jurisdiction.The Court observed that in the last leg of his service, the petitioner was seeking a transfer to either Mumbai or Hyderabad, which indicated his mindset to dictate terms while corresponding with the superior officers.“Having expressed our mind in Court that the petitioner was not being reasonable in his approach, despite having stayed in Mumbai for over a decade, and that he ought to realize that there are other officers (number is in excess of 100 as per the reply affidavit of MSB) waiting in the queue for a posting in Mumbai on grounds similar to those for which the petitioner seeks continued posting in Mumbai, we did not find the petitioner, who was present in Court, to provide any instructions that he would be satisfied if MSB considers his future posting in terms of the policy,” the Bench said..The Bench also highlighted that having regard to the developments made by the country in all spheres, it could be reasonably presumed that there are similar institutes in other cities of the country.Concluding that the petition had become infructuous after efflux of time, the Bench vacated the stay and permitted the petitioner to continue in Mumbai for a fortnight from July 14.Meanwhile, the petitioner was directed to respond about his choice of posting till July 18, failing which the MSB shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.The order also clarified that the petitioner could apply for voluntary retirement if he wished to do so..Advocates Kranti LC and Kaustubh Gidh appeared for the petitioner.Advocates BB Sharma and Suresh Kumar appeared for the MSB..[Read order]