Mandip Kumar Singh v. The Union of India
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In above view of the matter, the Appeal is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
Sri Gautam Kumar S/O Sri Rohit Lal through Administrative Officer Officiating Deputy Director General Recruiting Head Quarter Recruiting Zone (Bihar and Jharkhand), Danapur Cantt., Patna .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vinay Kant Singh, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. B.K.Pandey, Advocate. For the Responden no. 6 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6 26-04-2012 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 12th July 2011 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 10882 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 10882 of 2011 for redressal of his grievance in respect of appointment as Civilian Motor Driver in the Central Government Department under the Ministry of Defence, pursuant to the advertisement published on 22nd June 2 Patna High Court LPA No.3 of 2012 (6) dt.26-04-2012
Operative part
2010. The learned single Judge has rejected the petition on the premise that the appellant has alternative statutory remedy before the Armed Forces Tribunal constituted under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Learned advocate Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the Armed Forces Tribunal has a limited jurisdiction in respect of the persons subject to the Army Act, 1950; the Navy Act 1957 and; the Air Force Act, 1950. The civilian drivers appointed under the Ministry of Defence are not governed by any of the aforesaid Acts, but are governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was, therefore, required to be decided on merit. Learned Advocate Mr. B.K. Pandey appears for the respondents. He fairly concedes that the civilian drivers under the Ministry of Defence are not governed by any of the aforesaid three Acts. In above view of the matter, the Appeal is allowed. The Impugned order dated 12th July 2011 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 10882 of 2011 is set aside. CWJC No. 10882 of 2011 is revived and is remitted to the learned single Judge for hearing and decision on merits. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Sujit/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In above view of the matter, the Appeal is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; Army Act, 1950; Navy Act, 1957; Air Force Act, 1950.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 12 Jul 2011. The bench was BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.