IMPORTANT POINT
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 seek legal remedies are protected.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. By way of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 20.02.2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby his Original Application No. 459/2023 (Kishan Lal Jat vs. Union of India & Ors.) which was preferred under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1985’) has been rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. The requisite facts within the precincts of the issue involved are that the petitioner - a resident of Udaipur, vied for the post of Group ‘D’ in Level 1 pursuant to Centralised Employment Notice No. RRC-01/2019 dated 23.02.2019 (‘CEN’ in brief) notified by the Railway Recruitment Board, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RRB, Mumbai’), whereby online applications were invited for various posts.

3. The petitioner was though provisionally selected after successfully clearing various stages of recruitment, but was not accorded posting, as a criminal case was pending against him.

4. It is to be mentioned and noted that the petitioner is not only a resident of Udaipur, but also was allotted examination center at Udaipur - ‘Raghav Infotech D C Tak Compound Adarsh Nagar, Opposite Pacific University, Near Transport Nagar, Air Port Road’.

5. Feeling aggrieved of non issuance of appointment order, the petitioner preferred an Original Application under section 19 of the Act of 1985 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur. Said Original Application was rejected by the Tribunal, while holding that it lacked the territorial jurisdiction. While doing so, the Tribunal observed that since the petitioner had applied pursuant to an advertisement issued by the RRB, Mumbai, the jurisdiction to deal with any issue arising out of the recruitment in question vests in the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench at Mumbai, as has been provided in clause 20.4 of the Centralised Employment Notice (CEN).

6. Mr. Sangwa, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal has erred in non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. He highlighted that the petitioner is a resident of Udaipur and he had been allotted center to appear in the competitive examination at Udaipur and therefore, he was justified in invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction at Jodhpur Bench, particularly because a substantial cause of action had accrued in Udaipur, falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Jodhpur Bench.

7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of rule 6 of The Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1987’) and submitted that the petitioner was justified in invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction at Jodhpur Bench instead of going to Mumbai, where the office of Railway Recruitment Board is situate.

8. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India submitted that in the face of clause 20.4 of CEN, the petitioner was required to approach Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. He submitted that the conditions of CEN were very clear and binding upon the petitioner and thus, it cannot be said that an error has been committed by the Tribunal in rejecting petitioner’s Original Application on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. Before proceeding, we would like to reproduce rule 6(1)(ii) of the Rules of 1987, determinitive of the powers of the Tribunal, so far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned. Rule 6(1)(ii) reads as under:-

“6. Place for filing application.-(1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction-

(i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or

(ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen;

Provided tha