AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 70611/2024 & CM APPL. 70612/2024 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 16691/2024 & CM APPL. 70610/2024
This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Detailed Medical Report dated 15.10.2024 and the Review Medical Report dated 17.10.2024, declaring the petitioner unfit for appointment in the Physical Standard Test (in short, ‘PST’) (due to defective distant vision VA 6/24 RT Eye, and 6.24 LT. Eye) in the selection process for the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Secretariat Security Force (SSF), and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination- 2024.
The petitioner has applied for the said post pursuant to the Notice dated 24.11.2023 issued by the respondents. Clause 18 of the said advertisement reads as under:
“18 Court’s Jurisdiction: Any dispute in regard to this recruitment will be subject tocourts having jurisdiction over the place of Regional Office concerned of theCommission where the candidate has appeared for the Computer BasedExamination.”
Admittedly, the petitioner has not appeared for the Computer Based Examination in Delhi. His PST was also not conducted in Delhi.
This Court, on an objection of the respondents for lack of territorial jurisdiction for adjudicating a petition raising a similar issue, in its Order dated 25.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) 8480/2024, titled Uttam Kumar v. Union of India Through Its Secretary and Others, has held as under:
“8.Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the partiesand perused the record, we are of the considered view that once theadvertisement pursuant to which the petitioner had applied contained aspecific clause providing for territorial jurisdiction of the Court/Tribunalsituated in the area where the test was held.
9.The petitioner cannot now be permitted to argue that the clausesmentioned in the advertisement are not binding on him. We are, therefore,of the opinion that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction toentertain the present writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposedof, by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court having territorial jurisdiction.”
Being bound by the above Judgment, we dispose of the present petition, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction.
The pending application is also disposed of.