Transferred Application No. 89 of 2016. Case: Mohd. Irfan Vs Union of India and Ors.. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case Number:Transferred Application No. 89 of 2016
Party Name:Mohd. Irfan Vs Union of India and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Mohd. Shahan, Advocate and For Respondents: D.K. Pandey, Learned Counsel
Judges:D.P. Singh, J. (Member (J)) and Air Marshal Anil Chopra, Member (A)
Issue:Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 - Sections 2, 3(o), 34; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 2, 2 (b), 4; Constitution Of India - Articles 14, 21, 226, 227; Territorial Army Act, 1948 - Section 9
Judgement Date:February 06, 2017
Court:Armed Forces Tribunal
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

D.P. Singh, J. (Member (J)), (Regional Bench, Lucknow)

  1. Initially, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 6135 (S/S) of 2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, sitting at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, which has been transferred to this Tribunal in pursuance to power contained in Section 34 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 by order dated 05.08.2016 for adjudication of controversy in question and now registered as T.A. No. 89 of 2016. The petitioner has claimed the reliefs as under:-

    (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the entire selection and the merit list of religious teacher (Maulvi) in the Army as Junior Commissioned Officer for RRT 71 Course.

    (aa) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the appointment order of O.P. No. 4 after summoning the same from the opp. Parties.

    (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to O.P. No. 1 to 3 to take necessary steps to prepare the merit list of religious teacher (Maulvi) in the Army as Junior Commissioned Officer for RRT 71 Course according to norms as stated in the notification for recruitment of religious teacher in the Army as Junior Commissioned Officer for RRT 71 course and accordingly as per the said merit-list, pass necessary orders for petitioner's said selection to be commissioned as Religious Teacher (Maulvi) in the rank of Naib Subedar.

    (c) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of this case.

  2. Being non selected for the post of Maulvi by the Recruitment Agency Respondent No. 2/3, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 6135 of 2013 in High Court of Judicature at Lucknow Bench, Lucknow which has been transferred to this Tribunal vide order dated 05.08.2016 under the power conferred by Section 34 of the AFT Act 2007 for adjudication of controversy in question and has been registered as T.A. No. 89 of 2016.

  3. We have heard Mohd Shahan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, assisted by Major Soma John, Departmental Representative and perused the record.

  4. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner's father is a tailor, stitches clothes for army men and his uncle runs a shop of medals, ribbons etc. being sold to Indian Army Officers in Lucknow. The petitioner has passed NCC 'B' examination certificate and also NCC 'C' examination certificate under the authority of Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India. Copy of NCC 'B' and 'C' certificates are attached with the petition as Annexure No. 1 and 2. The petitioner is a graduate and has been appeared repeatedly for recruitment in the Indian Army as Religious Teacher (Maulvi) as a Junior Commissioned Officer. He also completed his Post Graduation i.e. M.A. in Urdu. In pursuance to Notification issued by Respondent No. 2 and 3 for recruitment as Junior Commissioned Officer for RRT 71 Course, the petitioner sent duly filled form to O.P. No. 3 in Lucknow. On 24.02.2013, the petitioner appeared in two written examination paper I and II in Lucknow. The petitioner has also cleared the requisite medical examination. He appeared for interview on 27.04.2013 held in Roorkee and after declaration of result, he came to know that only O.P. No. 4 has been selected for the post of Religious Teacher (Maulvi) as Junior Commissioned Officer for RRT 71 Course. Subsequently, he is attending training at Institute of National Integration, Pune. However, since the petitioner was not called to attend the training being unsuccessful candidate, he moved an application under RTI Act 2005, in response to which, he was informed vide letter dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure No. 7) that only one candidate has qualified the test i.e. O.P. No. 4.

  5. On query made through RTI Act 2005, petitioner was informed that recruitment is carried out in accordance with notification issued for each religious teacher's course. A copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 8 to Writ Petition.

  6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that merit list was wrongly prepared and the marks of paper II examination were not added while preparing final list of selected candidates. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Respondent No. 4 has been appointed as religious teacher in the rank of Naib Subedar against norms provided in the notification (supra) which is in contravention of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

  7. In response to argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, a preliminary objection has been...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL