$~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5455/2021 CDR A SWAPNA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Santhosh Krishnan and Mr.

Ashwin Joseph, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari and Ms. Reba Jena Mishra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 29.07.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length on the aspect of maintainability of this writ petition before this Court.

2. The petitioner is the Short Service Commissioned, [―SSC‖, hereinafter] lady officer of the Air Traffic Control, [―ATC‖, hereinafter] cadre of the Navy. She seeks, by the present petition, a declaration that SSC Officers of the ATC cadre in the Navy are entitled to consideration for permanent commission under the Naval Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Regulations, 1963 read with Policy Letter dated 25 February 1999,

W.P.(C) 5455/2021 Page 1 of 9

Signature Not Veri fied issued by the Ministry of Defence.

3. Additionally, the writ petition seeks a declaration that the Naval signals and other communications from the respondents, to the contrary, be held to be illegal.

4. At the time of issuing notice in the present writ petition on 24 May 2021, this Court had noted an objection by learned Counsel for the respondents to the maintainability of the present petition before this Court, as, according to learned Counsel, it would lie before the Armed Forces Tribunal, [―AFT‖, hereinafter]

5. In para 10 of the said order, this Court made it clear that, if ultimately it was found that this Court has no jurisdiction, or was not required to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the consequences would follow.

6. As such, the issue of the maintainability of the present petition before this Court, given the availability of remedy before the AFT, has been kept open from day one. We deem it necessary to point this out only because one of the submissions of Mr. Santosh Krishnan, learned Counsel who appears for the petitioner is that this petition has remained pending for over four years and is ripe for final hearing. In view of the para 10 of the order dated 24 May 2021, the pendency of this petition, or the present stage of the proceedings, cannot result in W.P.(C) 5455/2021 Page 2 of 9 Signature Not Veri fied any equities in the petitioner’s favour, insofar as the aspect of maintainability of petition is concerned.

7. On the aspect of maintainability, Mr. Santosh Krishnan emphatically contends that this petition is maintainable before this Court, even if the issue of whether this Court should or should not entertain this petition may be a matter of judicial discretion.

8. We have informed him that we are not relegating the petitioner to the AFT, treating it as an alternate efficacious remedy. We are concerned with whether this Court has jurisdiction to deal with this matter at all, given the judgment of the Seven Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v UOI

9. The following paragraphs from L. Chandra Kumar make it clear that if a service matter is amenable to adjudication by the AFT, this Court is denuded of jurisdiction in the matter, and will not entertain the petition as a Court of first instance:

―93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test the