Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/367/2023 on 11 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 367 OF 2023
11TH AUGUST, 2023
BETWEEN:
Hasrat Khan .....Petitioner.
And
Union of India & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Atul Bhatt, learned Standing
Counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition to assail the judgment and orders passed by the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow Bench in Review Application
No.53 of 2019, dated 16.10.2019, which had been preferred
against the order dated 09.08.2017, passed by the same
Tribunal in Transfer Application No.31 of 2017. The petitioner
also assails the original judgment of the Tribunal dated
09.08.2017.
2. The petitioner had preferred the writ petition, being
Writ Petition (S/S) No.381 of 2017 before this Court in
relation to the recruitment process initiated by the
respondents, way-back in the year 2016. That writ petition,
along with several others, raising a similar dispute, was
transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, by this Court.
3. It appears that the Tribunal re-transferred some of
those writ petitions to the High Court on the ground that the
dispute regarding recruitment could not be raised before the
Tribunal, and that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to
deal with the same. However, in the case of the petitioner,
even though, the petitioner pointed out at the hearing of the
Transfer Application No.31 of 2017, that the Tribunal did not
have the jurisdiction to deal with the dispute raised by the
petitioner, the Tribunal rejected the said argument and
proceeded to deal with the Transfer Application on merits,
and rejected the same on 09.08.2017.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner did not take any recourse
against the said order of the Tribunal for nearly two years.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Original Application No.37
of 2019, inter alia, seeking the recall of the order dated
09.08.2017, passed in T.A. No.31 of 2017 on the ground that
the same was without jurisdiction.
5. The petitioner also sought a direction for transfer of
the record back to this Court in 2019. The said O.A. was
rejected by the Tribunal on 17.01.2019.
6. The petitioner had also preferred Review
Application No.53 of 2019 with M.A. No.872 of 209 in T.A.
No.31 of 2017, which too was rejected on 16.10.2019.
7. The petitioner has now preferred the present writ
petition, six years after the passing of the original order in
T.A. No.31 of 2017, and over four years after the passing of
the impugned order dated 16.10.2019.
8. In our view, the present writ petition is highly
belated and clearly barred by delay and laches. The dispute
raised by the petitioner is in relation to the recruitment
process undertaken in the year 2016.
9. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the
present writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 11th August, 2023
NISHANT
