Arti Vishwakarma vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Heard Shri S.K. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri N.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

At the outset, a preliminary issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench arises for consideration. The respondents had issued Employment Notice No. 01/2025 inviting applications for various teaching and non-teaching posts in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. Paragraph 24(q) of the said Employment Notice specifically stipulates that:

The applicant has approached this Tribunal alleging infringement of her rights arising out of the recruitment process undertaken pursuant to the aforesaid Employment Notice. The applicant had applied for the post of TGT (Sanskrit) under the OBC (NCL) category. She participated in the selection process, qualified the written examination and was thereafter called for interview/document verification. However, her candidature was rejected vide communication dated 28.09.2026 on the ground relating to the OBC (NCL) certificate.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Bench, as the applicant is a resident of Prayagraj and the OBC (NCL) certificate relied upon by her was issued by the competent authority within the State of Uttar Pradesh. He, therefore, submits that this Bench has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Original Application. Learned counsel has also relied upon certain judgments/orders in support of his submission.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the present Original Application is not maintainable before this Bench for want of territorial jurisdiction. He submits that the applicant participated in the centralized recruitment pursuant to Employment Notice No.01/2025, which specifically contains a stipulation under paragraph 24(q) that any dispute relating to the said recruitment shall be subject to the Court having jurisdiction in Delhi only. It is, therefore, contended that merely because the applicant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench or the OBC (NCL) certificate relied upon by her was issued in Uttar Pradesh, no territorial jurisdiction can be conferred upon this Bench contrary to the express terms of the Employment Notice. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Original Application is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable before this Bench.

We have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record as well as the judgment and order supplied by learned counsel for the applicant in support of his case.

It is not in dispute that the applicant participated in the selection process pursuant to Employment Notice No. 01/2025. The grievance raised in the present Original Application arises directly out of the said centralized recruitment process and relates to rejection of her candidature during the course of the selection process. Thus, the impugned action has a direct and substantial nexus with the recruitment conducted pursuant to the aforesaid Employment Notice.

The applicant, having consciously participated in the selection process pursuant to the said Employment Notice, was bound by the terms and conditions contained therein, including the stipulation regarding territorial jurisdiction. The mere fact that the applicant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench, or that the certificate relied upon by her was issued by an authority situated within the State of Uttar Pradesh, cannot, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Tribunal in respect of a centrally conducted recruitment, particularly when the recruitment notice itself contains an express, clear and unambiguous stipulation conferring jurisdiction upon the Courts at Delhi only.

Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to Article 323-A of the Constitution of India. The said provision enables Parliament to provide by law for the establishment of administrative tribunals and to specify their jurisdiction, powers and authority. However, Article 323-A, by itself, does not determine the territorial jurisdiction of a particular Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of a particular recruitment dispute. The question before us is confined to whether this Bench can entertain the present dispute arising out of Employment Notice No.01/2025 in view of the specific stipulation contained in paragraph 24(q) thereof conferring jurisdiction in Delhi only. Thus, reliance upon Article 323-A does not advance the case of the applicant on the issue of territorial jurisdiction involved herein.

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Tribunal in Shri Alok Kumar Singh & Another v. Union of India & Another, OA No.458/1990, connected with OA No.469/1990 (Shri Satya Pal Singh), decided on 08.01.1991. We have carefully considered the said decision. The Full Bench therein was primarily concerned with the interpretation of Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, particularly the question whether a part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad Bench. The Full Bench held that where an adverse order or communication is received within the territorial jurisdiction of a Bench and thereby gives rise to a part of the cause of action, the application may be filed before that Bench.

The aforesaid decision, however, is distinguishable on the facts and in the context of the issue involved in the present case. The Full Bench in Alok Kumar Singh (supra) was considering the ordinary rule relating to the place of filing of an Original Application under Rule 6 and was not concerned with a centralized recruitment notice containing an express, specific and unambiguous stipulation that disputes relating to the said recruitment shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Delhi only. Therefore, the said decision cannot be read as laying down that, notwithstanding such an express stipulation contained in the recruitment notice, an applicant can invoke the jurisdiction of any other Bench merely on the ground that some part of the cause of action is alleged to have arisen within its territorial jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the decision of the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in Preeti Suman, OA No.260/00030/2020, decided on 11.08.2022. We have considered the said decision. In that case, the dispute arose in the context of an offer of appointment and subsequent service/termination proceedings, and the issue relating to the jurisdiction clause was considered by the Cuttack Bench in the context of Rule 6 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The said decision, therefore, arose in a materially different factual and legal setting and does not deal with the present situation where the applicant's grievance arises directly out of a centralized recruitment conducted pursuant to Employment Notice No.01/2025 containing an express stipulation under paragraph 24(q) that the jurisdiction shall be in Delhi only. The said decision, therefore, does not assist the applicant in the facts of the present case.

The applicant, having participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the terms and conditions contained in the Employment Notice, cannot, after rejection of her candidature, seek to disregard the specific stipulation regarding territorial jurisdiction contained in paragraph 24(q). The said stipulation formed an integral part of the notified terms of recruitment.

In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163, the Apex Court considered the question of exclusion of jurisdiction where more than one Court may otherwise have jurisdiction and held that where an ouster clause is clear, unambiguous and specific, and the parties agree to confer jurisdiction upon one of the competent Courts, such stipulation is valid. The Supreme Court has further observed that use of expressions such as “only”, “alone” or “exclusive” makes the intention to exclude other Courts clear. For ready reference, Para-21 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:-

The aforesaid principle has also been reiterated in Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs Universal Petro Chemicals Limited reported in (2009) 3 SCC 107.

In the present case, the language employed in paragraph 24(q) of the Employment Notice is clear and unequivocal. The expression “Delhi Only” leaves no scope for ambiguity regarding the intention of the recruiting authority to confine adjudication of disputes arising out of the recruitment process to the Courts having jurisdiction at Delhi. Such stipulation cannot be said to be arbitrary or without any rational basis and Central Administrative Tribunal^{also serves the legitimate purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings} in respect of the same centralized recruitment process.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that this Bench does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Original Application. Consequently, we do not consider it necessary to examine the merits of the applicant’s grievance relating to the OBC (NCL) certificate or the impugned communication dated 28.09.2026.

Accordingly, the present Original Application is dismissed as not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.

There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending M.As, if any, shall stand disposed of.