Delhi High Court
Wg Cdr Ravi Khandelwal Af 29434 F ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 23 February, 2022
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3280/2022
WG CDR RAVI KHANDELWAL AF 29434 F MED
..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Tarun Sharma with Ms.Akanksha
Kapoor and Ms.Kshiti Nim,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. S Bushra Kazim for Mr. Harish
Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC
% Date of Decision: 23rd February, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
C.M.No.9540/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.3280/2022 & C.M.No.9539/2022
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking modification of the order
dated 10th November, 2021 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal
Bench in O.A. No.2393 of 2021. The Petitioner in effect seeks stay on the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:28.02.2022
11:18:23
release order dated 28th September 2021 which directs the Petitioner's
release from service with effect from the 24th April, 2022.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was
inducted as a Short Service Commission Medical officer on 25th April, 2008.
He states that the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1480/2020
titled Cdr T Rajkumar Versus Union Of India & Another has directed the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi to consider the issue relating
to the grant of Permanent Commission in view of the existing vacancies in
the Army Medical Corps.
4. He points out that the Respondents have overlooked the substantial
number of existing vacancies and issued a release order dated 28th
September, 2021 whereby the Petitioner will be released from service w.e.f.
the afternoon of 24th April, 2022.
5. This Court finds that the AFT in the impugned order has held that the
release of the Petitioner shall be subject to the final decision in the OA. This
Court is of the view that the Tribunal has adequate power to mould the relief
as well as balance the equities at final stage.
6. Further, it is settled law that the jurisdiction of a writ Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution is vastly different and distinct from that of an
Appellate Court. The Writ Court while examining the judgment/order
passed by the Tribunal, will exercise the power of judicial review which
means that the Court shall examine the decision-making process and
interfere only for correcting errors of jurisdiction or errors apparent on the
face of record or if the Tribunal acts illegally. (See: Hari Vishnu Kamath
vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 1104; Surya Dev Rai vs.
Ram Chander Rai & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 675 and Rajendra Diwan vs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:28.02.2022
11:18:23
Pradeep Kumar Ranibala and Anr. (2019) 20 SCC 143.)
7. Consequently, the impugned order calls for no interference in writ
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending
application is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2022
KA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:28.02.2022
11:18:23
