Armed Forces Tribunal transfer limits preserve High Court writ and intra-court appellate jurisdiction in service matters.

Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act transfers only matters within the Tribunal's original jurisdiction and does not divest the High Court of its constitutional writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. An intra-court appeal pending before the High Court in an armed forces service dispute was therefore not required to be transferred to the Tribunal, and the High Court could continue to hear it. On merits, the discharge challenge failed because the record showed consideration for alternative appointments, the appellant did not meet the prescribed height requirement, and the absence of a recital in the discharge order did not establish illegality.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an intra-court appeal pending before the High Court in an armed forces service matter was required to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal under the transfer provision of the Act. (ii) Whether the appellant's discharge from service was unjustified for want of consideration of alternative appointment.

Issue (i): Whether an intra-court appeal pending before the High Court in an armed forces service matter was required to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal under the transfer provision of the Act.

Analysis: The jurisdiction conferred on the Armed Forces Tribunal under Section 14(1) extends to service matters, but it expressly excludes the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 34 transfers pending suits and proceedings that would have fallen within the Tribunal's original jurisdiction, but it does not extend to extinguishing the High Court's constitutional and intra-court appellate jurisdiction. The power of judicial review remains part of the basic structure, and the Tribunal cannot be treated as a substitute for the High Court in respect of writ jurisdiction or a pending intra-court appeal from a Single Judge.

Conclusion: The intra-court appeal was not liable to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, and the High Court could continue to hear it.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's discharge from service was unjustified for want of consideration of alternative appointment.

Analysis: The records showed that the appellant was considered for other posts before discharge, but he did not satisfy the prescribed height requirement for either post. The absence of a recital in the discharge order did not mean that no consideration had taken place. Since the case had been considered under the extant policy and the appellant was found unsuitable, no legal infirmity was shown in the discharge.

Conclusion: The challenge to the discharge failed, and the appellant was not entitled to relief on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the jurisdictional question and the merits, and the dismissal of the challenge was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 transfers only those pending matters that fall within the Tribunal's original jurisdiction, and it does not divest the High Court of its constitutional writ jurisdiction or require transfer of a pending intra-court appeal; judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 remains constitutionally protected.

---