Vikram Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Vikram Singh, a Sergeant in the Indian Air Force, filed a writ petition challenging the HR policy dated 15.12.2022, specifically clause 5, which he contended arbitrarily discharged airmen in their last year of residual service (19 years). He also challenged remarks on his applications dated 23.08.2024 and 19.12.2024, and letters dated 11.09.2024 and 24.12.2024, whereby his request for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and discharge certificate to join the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) was rejected. The respondents, Union of India and others (Air Force), argued that the jurisdiction to entertain the petition lies with the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The petitioner countered by citing a previous case where the Delhi High Court entertained a petition involving the AFT and directed a post to be kept vacant. He also argued that since respondents 4 and 5 (Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Department of College Education, Government of Rajasthan) were involved, the AFT would not have jurisdiction.

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition is not maintainable before it. Regarding the jurisdiction, the Court found that the prayers made in the petition are directed only against respondents 1 to 3 (the Air Force) and constitute a 'service matter'. For such matters, jurisdiction has been vested in the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) by the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The Court distinguished the case of Cpl. Avoy Sinha Babu, stating that while the Delhi High Court had entertained a writ petition in that instance, it was to direct the AFT to decide an application expeditiously and grant an ad-interim order, not to hold that the AFT lacked jurisdiction to entertain an Original Application seeking an NOC from the Air Force. The Court also noted that the Rajasthan High Court's order was an ad-interim order and did not appear to have addressed objections regarding the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy, thus not serving as a precedent on the question of jurisdiction. The Court also observed that prayers against respondents 4 and 5 were made in an interim application and not the main petition, and that respondents 4 and 5 would not be subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. Therefore, the Court refused to entertain the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition, considering the provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and the nature of the dispute involving service matters of an airman (Petitioner vs. Respondents 1-3)? 2. Whether the petitioner's reliance on the case of Cpl. Avoy Sinha Babu and the order of the Rajasthan High Court in Ashok Kumar Ruhela's case establishes this Court's jurisdiction or supports his claim for relief? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the present petition is maintainable before this Court because the AFT would not have jurisdiction over respondents 4 and 5. He further argued that a similar writ petition was entertained by the Rajasthan High Court, and an interim order was passed, suggesting that such matters can be heard by High Courts. He also referenced a previous case where the Delhi High Court entertained a petition involving the AFT and directed a post to be kept vacant, implying a precedent for High Court intervention. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition lies solely with the learned Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) in terms of Section 3(o) read with Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, as the dispute pertains to a service matter of an airman against the Air Force.