AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
“Directing the respondent to review of rejection and reconsideration of experience from the period 10.01.2020 to 31.07.2021 & 08.09.2022 to 15.03.2024 for the petitioner candidature roll no.1423056185, post code NR27324, advt. no.Phase XII/2024-reg. and appoint the applicant for the aforesaid post.”
The applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking, inter alia, redressal of her grievance against rejection of her candidature for the post of Vocational Instructor (Cosmetology), Post Code No. NR27324, pursuant to Advertisement No. Phase-XII/2024.
At the outset, during the course of hearing, an issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal was pointed out. It is an admitted position that the applicant had appeared in the examination at Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that since the Headquarters of Staff Selection Commission is at New Delhi, the present Original Application is maintainable before the Principal Bench. Learned counsel further submitted that the matter may be decided by this Bench and was also not convinced with our suggestion to file an appropriate Application, i.e., Petition for Transfer.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has also raised an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench and submitted that in view of the specific stipulation contained as Clause 24 (Jurisdiction of Courts/Tribunals) in the advertisement governing the recruitment process, the present Original Application cannot be entertained by the Principal Bench.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. ANALYSIS :
At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce Clause 24 of the Advertisement, which specifically deals with the jurisdiction of Courts/Tribunals. The same reads as under:
“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 Office(s) of the Commission where the candidate has appeared in the examination(s).”
The aforesaid condition forms part of the terms and conditions governing the recruitment process in which the applicant participated. The applicant, having participated in the selection process pursuant to the said advertisement, cannot seek to disregard the specific forum stipulation contained therein merely on the ground that the headquarters of the Commission are situated at New Delhi.
Admittedly, the applicant appeared in the examination at Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. The examination centre at Meerut, Uttar Pradesh falls under the Central Region of the Staff Selection Commission, the Regional Office of which is situated at Prayagraj/Allahabad. Thus, having regard to the express stipulation contained in Clause 24 of the advertisement, the dispute arising out of the recruitment process is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the concerned Regional Office and not merely on the basis of the location of the headquarters of the Commission.
We may also notice that Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 provides for the place of filing of an application, while Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 specifically confers upon the Hon’ble Chairman the power to transfer a case from one Bench to another. The statutory scheme thus recognizes the territorial allocation of matters amongst different Benches of the Tribunal.
In the present case, on 07.09.2026, when the issue of jurisdiction was pointed out, learned counsel for the applicant was specifically granted an opportunity to seek appropriate recourse in accordance with the statutory mechanism for transfer. However, learned counsel insisted that the present Original Application itself be adjudicated by this Bench on merits. We are unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel having regard to the express stipulation contained in Clause 24 of the advertisement, as it is well settled that the terms and conditions governing a recruitment process are sacrosanct. Once consciously incorporated in the advertisement, cannot ordinarily be permitted to be bypassed by a candidate who has participated in the selection process pursuant thereto. The applicant cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting the terms of the advertisement for participation in the selection process while seeking to disregard the specific jurisdictional stipulation contained therein. We are also of the view that there is no challenge to clause 24 of the advertisement by the applicant in present Original Application.
8. CONCLUSION :
In view of the aforesaid analysis, we find that the present Original Application is not maintainable before this Bench for want of territorial jurisdiction. The issue being foundational to the maintainability of the proceedings, we refrain from entering into the merits of the applicant’s grievance.
Accordingly, the present O.A. is dismissed in limine on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
It is, however, clarified that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claim. The applicant shall be at liberty to avail herself of such remedy as may be available to her before the appropriate Bench/forum in accordance with law.
Pending M.A(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.