ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative

In this case relating to selection, the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“(a) To issue an order or direction to the respondents to immediately consider the case of the applicant for providing him appointment under employment notice no. 1/2007 on the post of Group D category under Railway Recruitment Cell, Northern Central Railway, Allahabad under disabled quota.

(b) That any other relief which may be considered fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the applicant, including cost of the application.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised objection relating to the jurisdiction of this Bench to adjudicate the present case. It is stated that the Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad had issued the Employment Notice No. 01/2007 for filling up of 2,968 posts of different categories in Group ‘D’ in North Central Railway and paragraph 21 of the said Employment Notice specifically stipulated that “For any legal dispute the jurisdiction will be at Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad only.” It is contended that in view of said stipulation, the jurisdiction of all other Benches except Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal was ousted and so the present OA is not maintainable before this Bench for want of territorial jurisdiction which lies with the Allahabad Bench. In support, the respondents have inter alia cited Yuvraj Singh Dilip Singh Zala vs Union of India & Ors adjudicated by Hon’ble High Court Gujarat and Hariom Meena vs West Central Railway adjudicated by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, avers that the jurisdiction clause in the Employment Notification cannot supersede rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (CAT Procedure Rules, hereafter). It is stated that in terms of rule 6 an applicant can file an application with the Bench where the applicant is posted or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose. It is contended that the applicant is in receipt of communication from the respondents at the address of Unnao and, therefore, he has rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Bench. In support, the applicant has cited the judgment and order of Ernakulum Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 147 of 2019 Venugopalan O R vs Union of India & Ors.

5. We have heard both the parties.

6. It is noted that a controversy of similar nature arising in Yuvrajsingh Dilipsingh Zala (supra), Special Civil Application No. 4528/2016, was adjudicated by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat on 14.06.2016 in the following manner:

“4.01 At the outset, it is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner applied for the post in question pursuant to the employment notice dated 27.09.2012. The petitioner accepted all the terms and conditions mentioned in the said employment notice including clause 11 of the aforesaid notice and applied for the post in question. Clause 11 of the employment notice reads as under:

“11. Legal Disputes: For any legal dispute, the jurisdiction will be at Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai and High Court, Mumbai only.”

Thus, as per the employment notice, more particularly clause 11, if for any legal dispute the jurisdiction will be at Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai and High Court, Mumbai only. Therefore, once the petitioner herein applied for the post in question pursuant to the said employment notice and accepted all the terms and conditions mentioned in the employment notice including clause 11, thereafter it will not be open for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner still can approach any other forum other than the forum mentioned in clause 11 of the employment notice. As such the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the said employment no