- (1.) B. K. Sharma, J. Heard Shri R. N. Singh for the petitioner on the question of admission and stay.
(2.) BY this petition the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11-9-1995 communi cated to the petitioner vide letter dated 8-10-1995 (Annexure 2 and 3) res pectively to the petitioner), whereby the petitioner has been transferred to Ramgarh (Bihar) from Roorkee. The petitioner ii a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army. The impugned transfer order his been challenged being unreasonable and violativo of Article 14 of the Constitution and also being passed against the guide-lines of the Army Act. Shri R. N. Singh contends that on army personnel also the provi sions of Article 14 of the Constitution apply. He has placed reliance upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded in Maj C. V. V. Reddy v. Team Leador Army Team, Bharat Dynamics Ltd. , 1992 (4) SLR 549.
(3.) WE are afraid of this proposition. WE may observe that in view of the Apex Court decision rendered in Ram Sarup v. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 247, the provisions of the Army Act cannot be challenged on the ground that the same affects fundamental right under Part III of the Con stitution. Article 33 of the Constitution has conferred powers on the Parlia ment to determine, by law, as to what extent the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, in their application to the persons subject to that Act, be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them. We may, however, observe that in view of the Apex Court's decision rendered in Ram Sarup (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision relied upon by Sri R. N. Singh is of no avail to the petitioners. In Ram Sarup (supra), speaking for the Bench Hon'ble Mr. Justice Raghubar Dayal has held that each and every provision of the Act is a law made by Parliament and that if any such provision tends to affect that fundamental right under Part HI of the Constitution, that provision does not, on that account, become void, as it must be taken that Parliament has thereby, in the exercise of its powers, under Article 33 of the Constitution, made the requisite modification to affect the respective fundamental right. Thus, the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution in their application to the persons subjected to the Army Act, 1950, can be restricted or abrogated by the Parliament, and therefore, the same cannot be applied to the army personnel's in viola tion of the provisions of Army Act. No doubt, army personnel's are not denuded of the Constitutional privileges as guaranteed to the citizens none theless, the legal position is that the army personnel's are subjected to strictest form of discipline.;