Delhi High Court
Ic-74753F Lt Col Manali Shrivastava vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 May, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 30.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 02.05.2026
+ W.P.(C) 16316/2025 & CM APPL. 66752/2025
IC-74753F LT COL MANALI SHRIVASTAVA
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akshay Bhandari, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra,
Adv, CGSC, Ms. Mrinmayee
Sahu, Mr. Tribhuvan, Mr.
Abhimanyu & Ms. Anushka
Sarraf, Advs with Lt Col Tarun
Pillai, Maj Birinder, Maj Anish
Murlidhar for R-1 to R-4.
Mr. S.S. Pandey & Mr. Roshan
Kumar, Advs. for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
1. By the present writ petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a
writ in the nature of mandamus seeking quashing of the Order No.
391654/PO/MS-13 dated 18.09.2025 whereby the Petitioner was
posted out of her current unit thereby discontinuing her spouse
coordinated posting.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 16316/2025 Page 1 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
2. Succinctly put, the pertinent facts germane to the adjudication
of the present petition are as follows:
2.1. The Petitioner is stated to be a serving Lieutenant Colonel in the
Indian Army. Vide order dated 08.08.2024, the application of the
Petitioner for spouse coordinated posting was approved, and the
Petitioner as well as her spouse were both posted at Bathinda at 3
Electronic Warfare Battalion and HQ 2 Electronic Warfare Brigade
respectively. In terms of the spirit of the MS Branch Policy Letter, the
Initiating Officer of both, the Petitioner as well as her spouse, were
intimated about the Spouse Coordinating Posting for a tenure of 2
years subject to continued satisfactory performance. The official letter
dated 27.11.2024 addressed to the Commanding Officer of the
Petitioner stated the following:
“1. Ref MS Branch Policy letter No 04520/MS Policy dt 12 Feb
2010 and Posting Order No 391629/PO/MS-13 dt. 08 Aug 2024.
2. IC74753 Lt Col Manali Shrivastava, SIGS has been posted to
EW Bn vide ibid posting order on spouse coord for tenure of two
yrs subject to continued satisfactory performance.”
2.2. In the Petitioner’s tenure, a complaint dated 28.10.2024 was
preferred against the Petitioner for removing her from the post of
leave sanctioning authority.
2.3. Later, a warning for initiation of Adverse CR against the
Petitioner under para 120 of Army Order 05/2024/MS was issued by
the Commanding Officer/Respondent No. 5 vide letter dated
19.03.2025. The same encapsulated the shortcomings on the part of
the Petitioner in carrying out her work.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 16316/2025 Page 2 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
2.4. Subsequently, on 23.05.2025, a Performance warning was also
issued by Respondent No. 5 thereby expressing displeasure on the
performance exhibited by the Petitioner. The performance warning
also noted that the deficiencies in the service rendered by the
Petitioner during Operation Sindoor.
2.5. Thereafter, an adverse CR in respect of the Petitioner for the
period between 27.09.2024 – 18.05.2025 was initiated. The said
Adverse CR, however, was set aside as it did not meet the Assessment
Norms. Thereafter, Annual CR of the Petitioner for the period
between 27.09.2024 – 31.05.2025 was initiated and the same was
accepted as Adverse CR as it had met all Adverse CR norms as
promulgated vide Para 129(f) of AO 05/2024/MS. Consequently, the
Petitioner was posted to 23 WEU vide posting order dated 18.09.2025.
Against the said posting order, the Petitioner has preferred the present
petition.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the posting
order is malafide and is liable to be set aside. He submitted that the
Petitioner was posted on spouse coordinated posting for a minimum
tenure of 2 years. He submitted that the tenure of the Petitioner had
been curtailed without any reason.
4. He submitted that the posting order fails to mention the grounds
on which the Petitioner was being posted to a different location. He
submitted that the Petitioner was posted out merely because
Respondent No. 5/Commanding Officer had a problem with her and
the same is mala fide. He submitted that no reason has been given to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 16316/2025 Page 3 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
assert how the performance of the Petitioner is unsatisfactory. He
consequently submitted that the posting order is liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned CGSC submitted that the posting order
is merited and warrants no interference by this Court. He submitted
that the spouse coordinated posting for a tenure of two years was
subject to continued satisfactory performance by the Petitioner. He
submitted that a complaint dated 28.10.2024 was received against the
Petitioner highlighting deficiency in service. He submitted that the
warning letter dated 19.03.2025 and performance warning letter dated
23.05.2025 evidenced that the performance of the Petitioner was
dissatisfactory. He submitted that for the said reasons, the adverse CR
was endorsed by the competent authorities and the Petitioner was
posted to a different place.
6. Before resorting to delve into the rival contention of the parties,
it is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court. The power of this Court to interfere with a
posting order resulting in transfer is circumspect. This Court ought not
to interfere with a posting order resulting in transfer unless the same is
malafide or arbitrary.
7. It is settled law that transfer of an employee is incidental to
service and no employee can claim to be posted at a any particular
station as a matter of right. At the same time, while certain policy
instructions governing transfer have been framed, the same are only
guiding principles and they are not judicially enforceable [Ref. Union
of India and others v. S.L. Abbas : (1993) 4 SCC 357 and Shilpi
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 16316/2025 Page 4 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
Bose (Mrs) v. State of Bihar : 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659].
8. Postings in disciplined forces are governed by service rules.
Posting orders are passed considering the operational requirements
and other factors necessary in disciplined forces. The same cannot be
interfered routinely by exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The said principle has been underscored by a
Division Bench of this Court in Jagat Ram v. Union of India: 2017
SCC OnLine Del 7882, where it was held as under:
“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……
xxx
13. In Major General J.K. Bansal v. Union of India reported
in (2005) 7 SCC 227, the Supreme Court held:
“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.”
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). No case of malafides in issuance of the order of
transfer has been made out. We find that there are no grounds
made for interference with the order of transfer, which is in
administrative interest.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. In the present case, the ground agitated by the Petitioner to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 16316/2025 Page 5 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
ascribe mala fide to the impugned posting order is that Respondent
No. 5 had a problem with the Petitioner since the very beginning. It
has further been urged that no ground has been pressed to show how
the service of the Petitioner was not satisfactory.
10. In that, it is pertinent to note that during the tenure of the
Petitioner, complaints were made against the Petitioner showing
deficiency in service. On 19.03.2025, a warning letter for initiation of
adverse CR was given to the Petitioner highlighting various
shortcomings in work. Subsequently, on 25.05.2025, a performance
warning was also issued to the Petitioner highlighting deficiency in
service during Operation Sindoor. Pertinently, no reply was given to
the performance warning issued to the Petitioner.
11. While the Petitioner was posted for a tenure of 2 years, the
same was subject to continued satisfactory performance. The warning
letters issued to the Petitioner highlight subjective dissatisfaction in
the work of the Petitioner. While allegations are levelled that the
officer was biased against the Petitioner, no cogent material has been
brought forth to show malafide. Furthermore, the adverse CR initiated
against the Petitioner was endorsed by all the competent authorities.
The said endorsement of the Adverse CR has not been challenged by
the Petitioner.
12. It is also imperative to note that the Petitioner and her husband
have been accommodated for spouse coordinated posting for a period
of 77 months out of 149 months of marriage.
13. In such circumstances, in the absence of any material to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 16316/2025 Page 6 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
highlight malafide in the posting order, no ground to interfere with the
impugned order is made out.
14. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
MAY 02, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DEEPANSHU W.P.(C) 16316/2025 Page 7 of 7
Signing Date:02.05.2026
18:54:50
