Bombay High Court holds national interest above self-interest

Bombay High Court holds national interest above self-interest

It suggested that the petitioner, an army officer, could apply for voluntary retirement if he wished

The Bombay High Court has observed that national interest is above any other interest, including personal interest.

In the Lt. Col. Anil Kumar Yadav vs Military Secretary Branch & Others case, it refused to entertain a prayer by the army officer seeking an extension of his present posting in Mumbai to provide special medical treatment for his disabled son.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik stated, "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 petitioner had applied to the Military Secretary Branch (MSB) for the extension of his current tenure in Mumbai. This was to enable him to provide his disabled son special medical treatment, which according to him, was available only in Mumbai.

The petitioner also sought a choice of posting within seven days failing which the posting order would be issued by the authority based on inputs available with it.

On refusal of his extension, the petitioner approached the high court.

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 was not being insensitive to the child's needs, sentiments and sympathy could not be the basis to exercise its powers under writ jurisdiction.

The bench 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.

The court reasoned, "Having expressed our mind that the petitioner was not being reasonable in his approach, despite having stayed in Mumbai for over a decade, he ought to realize that there are other officers (the 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 the court, to provide any instructions that he would be satisfied if MSB considers his future posting in terms of the policy," the bench added.

It also highlighted that having regard to the developments made by the country in all spheres, it could be presumed that there were similar (medical) institutes in other cities of the country.

The bench vacated the stay and permitted the petitioner to continue in Mumbai only for a fortnight. He was directed to respond to his choice of posting, failing which, the MSB would be free to proceed in accordance with the law.

The court's order also clarified that the petitioner could apply for voluntary retirement if he wished.

While advocates Kranti LC and Kaustubh Gidh appeared for the petitioner, MSB was represented by advocates BB Sharma and Suresh Kumar.