PUSHPRAJ SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition challenge is made to action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner despite he having participated and remained successful in written examination as well as physical test conducted by Army Recruitment Office, Jabalpur for the position of Soldier / General Duty.

(2.) Though the matter relates to enlistment in Indian Army, however, respondents have not objected to the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that as per Sec. 3(o) of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the dispute of present matter does not fall within the ambit of AFT in view of Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Union of India Vs. Kapil Kumar decided on 24/4/2015. This Court is aware of the fact that if the petitioner is sent before the AFT, he would be caught in maze of legal intricacies, as the matter relates to enlistment in Armed Forces by a person who is not yet so enlisted. in the case of Kaptan Singh v Union of India and others (O.A No. 17 of 2015 decided on 28/5/2021), a Full Bench of the AFT has decided the legal issue by holding that matters pertaining to appointment and recruitment to the service is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Finding difference of opinion between various Benches on the issue, the Full Bench of Tribunal took note of the definition of "service matters" appearing in Sec. 3(o) of the AFT Act, the aims and objects and the application of the AFT Act only to persons who are subject to Army Act 1950, Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act 1950 and by a detailed order, after following the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Union of India through Secretary and others v. Kapil Kumar (Special Appeal No. 833 of 2015), came to the conclusion that matters pertaining to "recruitment" and "appointment" are beyond the jurisdiction.

(3.) Proceeding on merits, the case of the petitioner is that he qualified for the post of Soldier / General Duty and was awaiting the offer letter to attend the training centre for being recruited as Soldier / General Duty. However, the offer letter has never been received by the petitioner. Upon enquiry, it was intimated that the petitioner has remained unsuccessful in criminal antecedent verification and therefore, the respondents have not given offer of appointment to the petitioner. It is contended that the alleged offence was conducted when the petitioner was a juvenile and the matter was tried by the Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Satna and therefore, the said criminal case cannot be pressed into service to disqualify the petitioner for enlistment in Armed Forces.