Krishnarao Sanapala v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 19 Nov 2019 · 2019:DHC:7670-DB
S. Muralidhar; Talwant Singh
W.P.(C)12194/2019 and W.P.(C)12128/2019
2019:DHC:7670-DB
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions by army personnel seeking deployment on a UN Mission, holding that deployment decisions based on vacancy availability are discretionary and not subject to judicial interference under principles of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel.

Full Text
Translation output
7^ $-51 and 53 HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P.(C)12194/2019and CMAPPL.49843/2019(stay) fuiS^KRISHNARAOSANAPALAFORCESIGNAL
^ Petitioner nrough. Ms.ArchanaRamesh,Advocate.
VERSUS
UNIONOFINDIA ANDORS. Respondents
Through: Mr.A.P.Sahay,CGSC with Mr.RahuI Kulhare and Mr.DhirendraK.Yadav, Advocates.
W.P.(C)12128/2019and CMAPPL.49675/2019(int.direction)
SIGNALMAN MANISHKUMAR Petitioner
Through: Ms.ArchanaRamesh,Advocate.
VERSUS
UNIONOFINDIA AND ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr,A.P.Sahay,CGSC with Mr.RahuI Kulhare and Mr.DhirendraK.Yadav, Advocates.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANTSINGH fV.P.(C)12194/2019and W.P.(C)12128/2019 j ^
2019:DHC:7670-DB
19.11.2019 1.The prayer in both these petitions by army personnelforming partofthe signal corps is that a direction should be issued to the Respondentsto send them as part ofthe Force Signal Unit('FSU')for onward militaiy duty to the United Nations Mission('UN Mission'). Whathas been invoked is the principle oflegitimate expectationandeven'promissoryestoppel.'
ORDER

2. While the Petitioners were selected for the purposes ofthe said foreign mission andformed partofabatchthatwasto besentby30^July,2019.On the ground that there was a reduction in the vacancies available in the UN Mission, they were not so sent. The grievance is that subsequently some from the next batch were asked to report for the UN Mission, whereas the Petitioners have been sentbackto theirrespective parentunits.

3. In matters ofdispatching units for UN Missions,clearly the decisions of the Respondents have to be guided by the actual number ofvacancies that may exist. If, in fact, there are no vacancies to accommodate all of the persons selected for such missions, the Respondents cannot be faulted for returning some ofthose selected to their parent units. No mandamus can be issued to the Respondents in such matters. The decision in this regard is entirely within the domain ofthe Respondents. The Court is unable to find any discrimination or arbitrarinessthatcallsforinterference.The question of invoking principles of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel does not arise in such matters. W.P. (C)12194/2019and W.P. (C)12128/2019 Page2of[3] M

4. The petitions are misconceived and are dismissed as such. The pending applications also stand disposed of.

NOVEMBER 19,2019 tr S.MtJRALIDHAR,J. TALWANT SINGH,J. W.P.(C)12194/2019and W.P.(C)12128/2019 Page3of[3]