Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7991
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rameshwar Vyas, J, Amit Sahai, A
Umesh Pratap Singh Bhati – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the General manager, North West Railway, Jaipur – Respondent
Original Application No. 290/00217/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Jog Singh Bhati
For the Respondents: Mr B.L. Tiwari
The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application if the cause of action does not arise within its territorial limits, despite claims to the contrary.
Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 - Clause 14.08 - Jurisdiction - The applicant challenged the withholding of his result for the post of Catering Inspector Grade II, claiming the tribunal had jurisdiction based on part cause of action arising within its territory. The tribunal found that the recruitment notification's jurisdiction clause restricted it from hearing the case as the recruitment agency was outside its territory. The tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, emphasizing that the cause of action did not arise within its area. (Paras 3, 6, 8)
(B) Legal Jurisdiction - The tribunal discussed the validity of jurisdiction clauses in recruitment advertisements, noting that such clauses cannot restrict a citizen's right to seek legal remedy, but must comply with statutory provisions. (Paras 4, 6)
(C) Preliminary Objections - The tribunal addressed the respondents' preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction raised at the final arguments stage, concluding that the applicant failed to establish that the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. (Paras 6, 8)
Findings of Court:
The tribunal concluded it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application and directed the applicant to approach the appropriate bench.
Result: OA disposed of for lack of jurisdiction.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's grievance regarding withheld result. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's analysis on jurisdiction validity. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments on territorial jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. final order directing return of oa. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER
Per : Hon’ble Mr Justice Rameshwar Vyas
Being aggrieved by action of the respondent in withholding the result of the applicant vide letter dated 15.03.2016 (Annex. A/1), the applicant has preferred this OA with a prayer to quash and set aside the order of withholding the result and seeks direction against the respondents to give him appointment on the post of Catering Inspector Grade II.
2. The facts necessary to adjudicate the OA are as under:-
“2.1 Vide Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No. 03/2014 dated 11.10.2014 (Annex. A/2), applications were invited from eligible candidates for various posts inter-alia one post of Catering Inspector Grade II for the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB), Ajmer. The process of selection incorporated a single stage written examination followed by documents verification. The applicant underwent the process of selection and despite being placed on provisional panel, his result was withheld vide order dated 15.03.2016 (Annex. A/1).
2.2 The applicant prayed to disclose the reason for withholding of his result vide letter dated 30.03.2016 (Annex). Thereafter, he again raised his grievance vide letter dated 02.04.2016, which have not been responded to. Being aggrieved with the above, the applicant has preferred this OA. In the column of his application with regard to ‘Jurisdiction’, the applicant has pleaded that cause of action of subject matter arose within the jurisdiction of this tribunal.
2.3 After filing of the OA, vide order dated 06.04.2016, notices were issued and the respondents were directed to keep one post vacant till further order. The respondents filed a reply on 03.01.2018. Thereafter, the matter was posted for hearing, however, for various reasons, i.e. non-formation of the Division Bench, non-appearance of counsel for the parties, adjournment sought etc., the matter could not heard and remained pending. During final arguments, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objections with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this bench and also filed written submissions in this regard.
2.4 Keeping in view the settled legal position that legal issues can be raised at any stage, it would be proper to decide the preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction.
3. At the outset, it would be pertinent to note that clause 14.08 of the CEN (Annex. A/2) provides that “Any legal issues arising out of this Centralized Employment Notice shall fall within the legal jurisdiction of the respective Central Administrative Tribunal under which the RRB concerned is located.” In the present case, the RRB Ajmer issued notification for recruitment to the post of Catering Inspector Grade II which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this bench, therefore, the CEN restricts this bench to decide the instant OA. Keeping in mind the above factual position, heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kishan lal Jat v Union of India & Ors in DBCWP No. 8253/2024 decided on 22.05.2024 held that the jurisdiction of this tribunal is essentially a substitute of writ petition of Article 226 of Constitution of India, therefore, a citizen’s right to take remedy cannot be curtailed by way of an administrative instructions or in terms of an advertisement. It has also been held that once the petitioner has been empanelled, the terms of the advertisement including relating to the forum or territorial jurisdiction becomes otiose. After the empanelment, it ceases to continue as a dispute relating to recruitment.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the coordin
