Army Recruitment Disputes Prior to Enrolment Not Within AFT Jurisdiction: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that disputes arising at the stage of recruitment to the Indian Army, before a candidate becomes subject to the Army Act, 1950, are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal and can be examined by constitutional courts. In doing so, the Court set aside an earlier order dismissing a writ petition on the ground of maintainability and restored the matter for adjudication on merits.

The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anil Verma while allowing a writ appeal filed by Vikram Singh Gurjar against the Union of India and others. The appeal arose from an order dated December 12, 2019, by which a Single Judge had dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, holding that since the dispute pertained to recruitment in the Indian Army, the appropriate forum was the Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

Challenging this view, counsel for the appellant, Shri Purushottam Sharma, contended that the writ court had erred in declining jurisdiction. He placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, rendered in a batch of original applications with O.A. No.17/2015 Kaptan Singh v. Union of India as the lead matter. The Full Bench had categorically held that disputes relating to recruitment or appointment, occurring at a stage when candidates are not yet governed by the Army Act, Navy Act or Air Force Act, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The Division Bench noted that the Armed Forces Tribunal derives jurisdiction only over “service matters” as defined under Section 3(o) of the AFT Act, which presupposes that the individual concerned is already subject to one of the service enactments governing the armed forces. The Tribunal’s Full Bench had clarified that recruitment disputes arise prior to this stage and therefore cannot be adjudicated by the AFT. The High Court took note of the reasoning that jurisdiction of the Tribunal would arise only after a person becomes subject to the Army Act, 1950, or the corresponding naval or air force legislation.

During the hearing, Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar, Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union of India, fairly conceded the existence of the Full Bench ruling of the Armed Forces Tribunal. He also informed the Court that the dispute raised by the appellant had not yet been examined on merits.

After considering the submissions and the legal position emerging from the Full Bench reference, the Division Bench observed that the earlier order dismissing the writ petition on maintainability could no longer be sustained. The Court held that the impugned order “has to pale into oblivion” in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal on the scope of its jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order dated December 12, 2019, and restored the writ petition to its original number. The Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all available pleadings and grounds on merits. It further directed the respondents to file their reply expeditiously.

Taking note of the fact that the dispute pertained to recruitment and that considerable time had already elapsed, the Court requested the writ court to proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. The appeal was thus allowed and disposed of.

Case Title: Vikram Singh Gurjar v. Union of India and Others

Order Date: 02.02.2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Anil Verma