https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296580 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. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:49:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296580 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296580