Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1483 - SC - Indian LawsAppropriate Jurisdiction to decide an issue - case related to an Armed Forces personnel - whether an appeal against an order of a single judge of a High Court deciding a case related to an Armed Forces personnel pending before the High Court is required to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal or should be heard by the High Court? HELD THAT:- The High Court is a Constitutional Court constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution and are courts of record within the meaning of Article 215. It is obvious that the order of the High Court cannot be challenged before any other forum except the Supreme Court. The provision of intracourt appeal whether by way of Letters Patents or special enactment is a system that provides for correction of judgments within the High Courts where a judgment rendered by a single judge may be subject to challenge before a Division Bench. This appeal to the Division Bench does not lie in all cases and must be provided for either under the Letters Patent or any other special enactment. Even where such appeal lies the appeal is heard by two or more judges of the High Court. We cannot envisage a situation where an appeal against the order of a sitting judge of the High Court is heard by a Tribunal comprising of one retired judge and one retired Armed Forces official - Therefore, the contention that, an intra court appeal from the judgment of a single judge of the High Court to a Division Bench pending in the High Court is required to be transferred under Section 34 of the Act, is rejected. Merits of the case - HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact is that the appellant could not clear the aptitude test. It has been urged that even if he could not clear the aptitude test, he should have been considered for appointment in some other post before being discharged from service. It is also urged that in the order of discharge it is not indicated that the case of the appellant was considered for such alternative service. Before discharge, the name of the appellant was considered for two categories but unfortunately the appellant could not meet the height criteria for appointment to either of the posts. Thus, this clearly shows that his case was considered as per the extant policy but he was not fit for appointment - Appeal dismissed.
|