Satendra Kumar vs Union Of India

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief:-

“i) That, the impugned rejection letters/communications may kindly be quashed and the petitioners be held to be holding requisite educational

qualification for the post of JCO-RT “Panditâ€​,

ii) a special written test be also directed to be held for the petitioners and they be allowed to participate in the further recruitment process,

iii) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the the circumstances of the case may also be granted,

iv) costs may also be awarded,â€​

The moot question for consideration is that whether this petition is maintainable before this Court or the jurisdiction lies

with Armed Forces Tribunal.

This Court in the case of Vikram Singh Gurjar Vs. Union of India & Ors. by    order dated 12/12/2019       passed in

W.P.No.23209/2019 has held as under:-

 “(6) The word ''appointment'' used in Section 3(o)(ii) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 has signifiance. The word ''appointment'' means any dispute with

regard to appointment to the Armed Forces. According to the counsel for the petitioner, unless and until, the petitioner becomes subject to the Army Act, his case

would not be covered by the definition of ''service matters''. If the contention raised by the petitioner is accpeted, then there will be a head on collision between the

words ''subject to the Army'' and ''appointment'' used in Section 3(o)(ii) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. Construction of provision should be made to avoid

inconsistency or repugnancy within the Section. The word ''appointment'' would necessarily mean that the petitioner is not in the Army but he is seeking appointment

by challenging his non-selection. The provision of one part of Section cannot be used to defeat the other unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between

them. Thus, where a recruitment process was undertaken by the Army, and a person by virtue of his Selection would become subject to the Army, then challenge of

non-selection would also be covered by the word ''appointment'' as used in Section 3(o)(ii) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Section 3(o)(iv) of the Armed

Forces Tribunal Act is a residuary clause. Thus, if Section 3(o)(ii) & 3(o)(iv) of Armed Forces Tribunal Act are read together, then challenge to recruitment process

would be covered by the definition of ''service matters''.

(7) So far as the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the matter of Kapil Kumar (supra) is concerned, the importance and meaning of word ''appointment'' as

mentioned in Section 3(o)(ii) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 has not been taken into consideration. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

recruitment process undertaken by the Army for appointment to the Armed Force would be covered by word ''appointment'' as mentioned in Section 3(o)(ii) of the

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India, thereby challenging the recruitment

process/ non-selection for the post of Soldier Trademan is not maintainable before the High Court.

(8) Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner that if he so desires, then he can approach the Armed Forces Tribunal.â€​

In the present case also, the petitioners have challenged recruitment process on the post of Pandit in Indian Army. Since, this Court has already held

that the jurisdiction exclusively lies with Armed Forces Tribunal, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability with liberty to

the petitioner that, if so advised then he can approach the Armed Force Tribunal for the redressal of his grievances.

Â