CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00386 of 2015 Dated, this 23rd day of March, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Anoop Kumar Rawat, aged about 23 years, S/o Sri Nanku Prasad, R/o Village and Post Arther, Suhawal, District Faizabad.

…..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Subodh Kumar Verma VERSUS

1. Union of India through Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad.

…..Respondent By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to selection, the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“(a) To quash the impugned order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the Respondent No. 2, as contained in Annexure A-1 to the O.A.

(b) To direct the Respondent No. 2 to declare the final result of the applicant in pursuance to the Notification No. 1 of 2010 and act upon the same with all consequential benefits with effect from the date the result of the said examination was declared within a specified time.

(c) To pay the cost of this application.

(d) Any other order which this Hon‟ble Tribunal deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case be also passed.”

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 stating that the Railway Recruitment Cell, North Central Railway, Allahabad had issued the Employment Notice No. RRC/NCR/01/2010 on 19.12.2010 for filling up of 4,692 vacant posts in Pay Band – 1 of Rs. 5,200 – 20,200 (Grade Pay Rs. 1,800) in North Central Railway and that paragraph XV sub-clause 3 of the said Employment Notice specifically stipulated that “In case of legal dispute, the jurisdiction of judiciary will be at Allahabad.” 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.

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 contended that Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld in Om Prakash Agarwal vs Vishan Dayal Rajpoot 2018 INSC 970 that if objection is not raised at an early stage, it cannot be raised later.

5.1 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 includi