AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Ms. Aditi Kesharwani, learned counsel for applicant and Shri Jitendra Prasad, Shri Ashish Malhotra, Shri N.P. Singh and Shri K.D. Mishra, learned counsels for the respective respondents at the admission stage and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has raised objection relating to the jurisdiction of this Bench to adjudicate the present case stating that the respondents had issued the Employment Notice No.01/2025 inviting applications for the different posts and that paragraph 24 sub-clause q of the said Employment Notice specifically stipulated that “Any dispute with regard to this recruitment shall be subject to the Court having its Jurisdiction in Delhi Only.”
It is contended that in view of said stipulation, the jurisdiction of all other Benches, except Delhi 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 CAT Allahabad Bench.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain the original application over the issue, as part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and no cause of action in the matter had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Principal Bench at Delhi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents issued an advertisement vide Notification No. 01/2025 inviting applications for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) and other Posts, pursuant to which the applicant submitted her application for the said post under the OBC (NCL) category. As per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, a candidate claiming reservation under the OBC (NCL) category was required to furnish an OBC (NCL) certificate in the prescribed proforma, and the date of issuance of such certificate was required to be between 01.01.2025 and the last date prescribed for submission of the application form.
Learned counsel further submits that the applicant duly participated in the selection process and successfully qualified the Preliminary Examination as well as the Tier-II Examination. Thereafter, she was called for interview scheduled on 28.09.2026 at PM Shri Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ajmer, Rajasthan. The applicant appeared before the respondents on the scheduled date; however, she was declared ineligible on the ground that her OBC (NCL) certificate had not been issued within the period prescribed under the advertisement vide order dated 28.09.2026.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the express terms and conditions of the advertisement. It is contended that the OBC (NCL) certificate submitted by the applicant was issued on 11.05.2025, which admittedly falls within the prescribed period commencing from 01.01.2025 and ending with the last date for submission of the application form. Therefore, the applicant fully satisfied the eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement and could not have been declared ineligible on the ground stated by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have wrongly interpreted the condition relating to the date of issuance of the OBC (NCL) certificate and, without any justifiable reason, deprived the applicant of consideration for appointment despite her having successfully cleared the Preliminary and Tier-II Examinations. Learned counsel accordingly prays that the impugned action of the respondents declaring the applicant ineligible may be set aside and the respondents be directed to permit the applicant to participate in the further selection process, including interview and consequential stages, in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the applicant places heavy reliance on following judgments:-
In case of Rakesh Kumar Verma Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., reported in 2025 INSC 473.
The Navodaya Vidyalaya Smiti & Anr. Vs. Salma Sultana passed by The Guwahati High Court in WP(C) No.163/2024
In case of Shri Aloki Kumar Sing & Ors. Vs. Shri Satya Pal Singh in O.A .No.458/1990 passed by CAT Allahabad Bench.
In case of Saurabh Yadav Vs. Department of School Education and Literacy), in O.A. No.593/2026 passed by CAT Lucknow Bench.
It reflects from the record that that the respondents had issued Employment Notice No. 01/2025 inviting applications for various posts, including the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT). Paragraph 24(q) of the said Employment Notice contains a stipulation that “Any dispute with regard to this recruitment shall be subject to the Court having its Jurisdiction in Delhi Only.”
The applicant has approached this Tribunal alleging infringement of her rights arising out of the recruitment process undertaken pursuant to the aforesaid Employment Notice. It is not in dispute that the applicant accepted the terms and conditions of the Employment Notice and, with full knowledge thereof, participated in the selection process. She appeared in the Preliminary Examination as well as Tier-II Examination and was thereafter called for interview. Her candidature was ultimately rejected vide order dated 28.09.2026 on the ground that the OBC (NCL) certificate produced by her was not issued within the period prescribed under the Employment Notice. Thus, the impugned action has a direct and substantial nexus with the recruitment process conducted pursuant to Employment Notice No. 01/2025.
The applicant, having consciously participated in the selection process pursuant to the aforesaid Employment Notice, was bound by the terms and conditions contained therein, including the stipulation regarding territorial jurisdiction. The mere fact that the applicant submitted her application from a place falling within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench, or that the OBC (NCL) certificate was issued by an authority situated within such jurisdiction, 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 exclusive jurisdiction upon the Courts at Delhi.
The applicant cannot be permitted to accept and act upon the terms and conditions of the Employment Notice for the purpose of participating in the selection process and, after her candidature has been rejected, challenge the very same terms insofar as they relate to territorial jurisdiction. The stipulation contained in paragraph 24(q) formed an integral part of the notified terms of recruitment and was available to the applicant from the inception of the selection process. Having participated in the recruitment with full knowledge of the said condition, she cannot selectively accept the terms favourable to her while disputing the jurisdiction clause contained in the same Employment Notice.
In the case of ABC Laminart Pvt Ltd Versus A P Agencies, Salem reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163, the Supreme Court has considered the question with respect to ouster of jurisdiction in a case where more than one Court having jurisdiction and the contract to vest jurisdiction in one of them and the Supreme Court has held that such a contract and ouster of jurisdiction is not against public policy. It is held by the Supreme Court that there may be two or more competent Courts which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of cause of action having arisen there within, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such court to try dispute which might arise between themselves the agreement would be valid. In para 21 of the said decision of the Supreme Court has observed as under:
21.From the foregoing decisions it can be reasonable deducted that where such an ouster clause occurs it is pertinent to see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction of other courts. When the clause is clear unambiguous and specific accepted notions of contract would bind the parties and unless the absence of ad idem can be shown, the other Courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction. As regards construction of the ouster clause when words like „alone‟ „only‟ „exclusive‟ and the like have been used there may be no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim „expressio unlus est exclusio alterius‟ – expression of one is the exclusion of another may be applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. In such a case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of another. When certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all other from its operation may in such cases be inferred. It has therefore, to be properly construed.
Again the same proposition of law has been pronounced by the Supreme Court in the case of 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 little scope for any ambiguity regarding the intention of the recruiting authority to confine adjudication of disputes arising out of the recruitment process to the Courts at Delhi. The clause is neither vague nor incapable of being understood. More importantly, the recruitment in question was a centralized recruitment, pursuant to which applications were invited from candidates across the country. In such circumstances, the stipulation confining the jurisdiction to Delhi cannot be said to be arbitrary or without any rational basis. Such a stipulation also serves the legitimate purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings before different Benches/Courts across the country in respect of the same centralized recruitment process.
In view of the above discussions, no interference is warranted in this original application. Accordingly, instant original application stands dismissed as not maintainable.
All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
No order as to costs.