Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Department Of School Education And Literacy, Government Of India, Represented By The Commissioner and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Salma Sultana, D/o. Lt. Shamsul Haque – Respondent
WP(C) No.163 Of 2024
Decided On : 25-06-2024
JURISDICTION - RECRUITMENT DISPUTE - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 14(3); Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 28 - The court analyzed the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in light of the stipulation in the recruitment advertisement that disputes be subject to the jurisdiction of Delhi courts. It concluded that the stipulation was void as it conferred jurisdiction on a court that lacked it, thus allowing the CAT, Guwahati Bench, to entertain the dispute as part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The court emphasized that parties cannot oust the jurisdiction of competent courts through contractual stipulations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, which held it had jurisdiction over a recruitment dispute despite a clause in the advertisement stating that disputes should be subject to the jurisdiction of Delhi courts. The sole respondent was not allowed to participate in an interview due to qualifications not meeting the advertised requirements, leading her to seek redress through the CAT.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the CAT, Guwahati Bench, had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The stipulation in the advertisement conferring jurisdiction to Delhi courts was deemed void as it attempted to confer jurisdiction on a court that lacked it.
Issues: 'Whether the CAT, Guwahati Bench, had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute arising from the recruitment process.', 'Whether the stipulation in the advertisement regarding jurisdiction was sustainable.'
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while parties can agree to submit disputes to a specific court, such an agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that lacks it. The stipulation in the advertisement was void as it attempted to oust the jurisdiction of the CAT, Guwahati Bench, which had proper jurisdiction over the matter.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of the CAT, Guwahati Bench, affirming its jurisdiction over the recruitment dispute.
JUDGMENT :
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)
Heard Ms. R. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. H. K. Das, learned counsel for the sole Respondent.
2. The petitioners by way of instituting the present proceeding, have presented a challenge to an order, dated 24.05.2023, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in Original Application No: 040/00105/2023 and Misc. Application No: 040/00053/2023.
3. In view of the nature of the order presently under challenge in the present proceeding; we are limiting the consideration as made by the present order only to the decision as arrived at by the learned Tribunal pertaining to its jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in the original application being Original Application No: 040/00105/2023.
4. The facts, in brief, requisite for the purpose of adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under:
The petitioner No. 1 issued an advertisement in the issue of the Employment News, dated 09-15 July, 2022, inviting online applications under a Special Recruitment Drive 2022-23 for filling-up vacancies in various cadres as available in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas situated in the North Eastern Region.
The advertisement, in question, under Clause 6 -“GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CANDIDATES”, more specifically, in Clause 6(23) contained a stipulation to the effect that any dispute with regard to this recruitment shall be subject to the Court having its jurisdiction in New Delhi only.
The sole respondent in pursuance to the said advertisement, submitted her application for recruitment against the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Chemistry).
The qualifications of the petitioner having found to meet the eligibility criterias prescribed, she came to be issued with a call letter for appearing in a written examination scheduled on 16.12.20022 in the premises of the North Eastern Hill University, Shillong.
The results of the said written examination was so published and amongst candidates short-listed against the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Chemistry), the name of the sole respondent, herein, figured at serial No. 60, with further stipulation that the respondent was to appear in an interview scheduled on 21.03.2023.
Accordingly, a call letter, dated 17.03.2023, came to be issued to the sole respondent to appear in the interview on 23.03.2023 and the venue of the same was reflected as Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Paschim Marg, Sector-25(West), Chandigarh. The call letter further stipulated the documents, the sole respondent was required to produce at the time of her interview. It was also stipulated that in the event, the respondent is claiming equivalence of the qualification possessed by her with the notified qualification, documents relevant for the purpose issued by the authorities so mentioned, would also be required to be produced.
The respondent, herein, in terms of the call letter issued to her, proceeded to appear in the interview on 21.03.2023, however, on verification of her documents, the qualification as possessed by her not found to be satisfying the notified qualifications, she was not allowed to participate in the said interview. It is projected by the sole respondent that she had subsequently produced before the petitioners, documents towards establishing the equivalence of the qualification as possessed by her with the notified qualification.
The respondent being aggrieved by the non-consideration of her case, approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)2083/2023. This court, on being apprised about the existence of a Notification, dated 17.12.1998, issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) conferring jurisdiction upon the Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) under Section 14(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to entertain matters relating to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment, etc., pertaini
AI
Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court that lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter; such stipulations are void and against public policy.
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in centralized recruitment disputes where core processes occur outside its territory, per notification ouster clause.
The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is determined by statutory provisions, which cannot be overridden by conditions in recruitment advertisements, ensuring citizens' rights to see....
The tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application as the appointment letter specified that disputes should be addressed in Delhi Courts, excluding other jurisdictions.
The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal must be established by where the cause of action arises, especially in online applications.
The judgment emphasized the need for clarifying the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226(2) in relation to challenges against orders passed by the Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench,....
The lack of jurisdiction of a tribunal is a fundamental issue that can be raised at any stage, and any decision made by a tribunal without jurisdiction is a nullity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
