Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in centralized recruitment disputes where core processes occur outside its territory, per notification ouster clause.

O R D E R (Oral):-

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member

In both the Original Applications, the applicants responded to Annexure-A1 advertisement issued by the SCC for selection to the post of Assistant (Architectural Department) in CPWD Kerala-Karnataka Region. The applications were submitted online. Final list of short listed candidates was published. Applicants were included in the list. Contenting that in spite of availability of vacancies, the posts are not filled up, the applicants have approached this Tribunal. Admittedly, both the applicants have responded to the Kerala–Karnataka Region, which has its Headquarters at Bengaluru.

2. When the OAs came up for hearing, the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the OAs are not maintainable in so far as no cause of action in relation to the OA has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It was contended that it was a centralised process of selection done for the entire region of Kerala-Karnataka. Entire process of selection was done at Bengaluru. No cause of action, either in full or in part has arisen withing the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, it was contented. The learned SCGSC invited our attention to Clause 24 of the notification which specifically provides as follows:-

“24. Jurisdiction of Courts/Tribunals:

Any dispute in regard to this recruitment will be subject to Courts/Tribunals having jurisdiction over the place of concerned Regional Offices of the Commission where the candidate has appeared in the examination(s).”

It was contended by the learned SCGSC, hence this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction, to adjudicate the issue concerned.

3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the applicants relied on Rule 6 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, to contend that it enabled the applicants to approach the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction, the cause of action, wholly or in part has arisen. It was contended that application was submitted from Kerala, various communications in relation to the selection process was received in Kerala and the place of the examination proposed by the applicant was also within this Tribunal's jurisdiction. It was contented that the post to which the applicant had sought appointment is in Kerala, which constitute a very relevant aspect of jurisdiction. According to the learned Counsel for the applicants, they cumulatively constitute the cause of action.

4. At the outset, we are inclined to reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that place where post is available will constitute a cause of action. The cause of action conceptually are those bundle of facts, which if established, will confer right to relief to the applicants.

5. We cannot accept the contention of the applicants, that place of post which falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal will constitute a part of cause of action. The applications were submitted to respondents at Kochi. Applications were processed centrally by the Office of Kerala-Karnataka Region in Bengaluru. Applicant was invited to attend for document verification at Chennai. Final list was published from Bengaluru. The jurisdiction of such centralised examinations was considered by this Tribunal in Rajesh K.M and another v. Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others in OA.586/2023. It was held by this Tribunal as follows:

“10. The learned SCGSC who appeared on behalf of respondent Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan specifically relied on an earlier decision of this Tribunal in OA No.118 of 2019, wherein the same question directly came up for consideration. This Tribunal, relying on the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Krishna Indukum