IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. Bajanthri, J.
Rishi Ranjan Kumar Son of Mithilesh Sharma and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India Through the Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4321 of 2022
Decided On : 09-05-2022
Jurisdiction - Religious Teacher Appointment - Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, Section 14, 39, 40, 2 - The court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction, citing the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Act in Union of India and Others vs. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and Another (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 773. The court emphasized that all service matters, including the recruitment process for any post in the Armed Forces, must be initially addressed under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before the jurisdictional Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought relief for quashing orders rendering them ineligible for the post of Religious Teacher in the Indian Army and for allowing them to participate in the selection process. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition when the petitioners had a statutory remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition was not maintainable and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction, as all service matters, including the recruitment process for any post in the Armed Forces, must be initially addressed under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before the jurisdictional Tribunal.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition when the petitioners had a statutory remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and the interpretation of the Act by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and Another (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 773, emphasizing that all service matters, including the recruitment process for any post in the Armed Forces, must be initially addressed under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 before the jurisdictional Tribunal.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the petitioners were advised to approach the appropriate forum for their grievance.
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. In the instant case, petitioners have prayed for the following relief/reliefs:
ii. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to allow the writ petitioners to participated in the selection process being conducted in pursuance of advertisement dated 09.01.2021 issued for appointment to the post of ‘Religious Teacher’ in the Indian Army.
iii. For issuance of an order, direction or an appropriate writ for staying the further recruitment process against the advertisement dated 09.01.2021 issued for appointment of ‘Religious Teacher’ in the Indian Army during the pendency of the writ application.
And/or
iv. For issuance of an order, direction or an appropriate writ for directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioners to participate in the further recruitment process against the advertisement dated 09.01.2021 issued for appointment to the post of ‘Religious Teacher’ in Indian Army subject to the result of the present writ application.”
3. Grievance of the petitioners is in respect of selection and appointment to the post of Religious Teacher in the Indian Army. Question for consideration is whether this Court has a jurisdiction to entertain the present petition when the petitioners have statutory remedy before the jurisdictional Armed Forces Tribunal or not?
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that Armed Forces Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioners’ grievance for the reasons that Armed Forces Tribunal could entertain the application or a petition only to such of those persons who are already in Armed Forces. The petitioners have not yet entered the Armed Forces services, therefore, Armed Forces Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in the light of Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1950.
5. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is necessary to take note of Sections, 14, 39 and 40 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (Act, 2007). The aforesaid Sections reads as under:
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority, exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court or a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to all service matters.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by an order pertaining to any service matter may make an application to the Tribunal in such form and accompanied by such documents or other evidence and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application relating to service matters, the Tribunal shall, if satisfied after due inquiry, as it may deem necessary, that it is fit for adjudication by it, admit such application; but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may dismiss the application after recording its reasons in writing.
(4) For the purpose of adjudicating an application, the Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely--
(a) summoning and enforcing the a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.