The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal must be established by where the cause of action arises, especially in online applications.

ORDER

(By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajni Kant Rai and Shri R K Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

“(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned order dated 23.04.2025 passed by Union Public Service Commission.

(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of applicant on the post of Deputy Superintendent Archaeologist, in Archaeological Survey of India, Ministry of Culture and further to re-consider the case of applicant in the light of his experience certificate and supporting documents.

(iii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to Stay the effect and operation of Impugned Order dated 23.04.2025 passed by Union Public Service Commission and further allow the applicant to appear in the upcoming interview provisionally, during the pendency of present Original Application before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

(iv) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.”

3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Union Public Service Commission by way of which the applicant’s application for recruitment on the post of Deputy Superintendent Archaeologist in Archaeological Survey of India, Ministry of Culture, advertised under Advertisement No 11/24 has been rejected.

The applicant is a resident of Lalitpur District, Uttar Pradesh and the respondents’ office is situated at New Delhi.

Thus, at the outset, we have heard learned counsel for the parties regarding the maintainability of the present original application before this Bench of Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the notification was issued by Union Public Service Commission but the applications of the interested candidates were obtained online and therefore the applicant has also applied through online mode. It is further argued that applicant’s candidature was rejected. Information regarding this was received by the applicant through letter dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure A -7). It is further argued that since the applicant is a resident of district Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh, cause of action shown in the OA to quash the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 is redressable before this Bench of the Tribunal also. It was next argued that if the applicant has submitted his application through online mode, jurisdiction of this Tribunal cannot be excluded since there is no specific quotation in regard to this point in the advertisement. Thus, prayer was made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the instant OA may be admitted and heard by this Bench of the Tribunal. To substantiate his arguments on the point of maintainability of this OA before this Bench, the applicant’s counsel has placed reliance upon the following case laws:

i. Judgment dated 16.09.2020 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W P (C) No. 3230/2020 titled Kirti Arora Vs Reserve Bank of India .

ii. Judgment dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in WP No 7480 (W) of 2019 titled Apratim Mukherjee Vs State Bank of India and Others.

iii. Order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 1681 of 2025 titled Ramesh Kumar Gautam Vs Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)

5. Learned counsel