P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. In the instant case, petitioners have prayed for the following relief/reliefs:—

“i. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 19.01.2022 contained in Annexure P14A and P14B whereby and where under the petitioners (petitioner number 1 and 5) have been rendered ineligible and their candidature has been cancelled against advertisement dated 09.01.2021 published by the respondent authorities for appointment to the post of ‘Religious Teacher’ in the Indian Army on the ground that they do not meet educational criteria despite the fact that the petitioners’ qualification is approved by the UGC and also accepted by the Central Government for the purposes of employment.

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:—

14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority in service matter.—(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 en