AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. He submitted that the cause of action in the present case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna Bench of this Tribunal. He referred to Advertisement No. 01/2018 issued by RRB, Patna, particularly paragraph 18.4 thereof, which provides as under:
“इस सीईएन के कारण उत्पन्न किसी भी कानूनी मुद्दे के लिए न्यायाधिकार क्षेत्र संबंधित केन्द्रीय प्रशासनिक अधिकरण होगा जिसके अंतर्गत संबंधित आरआरबी स्थित है।” Learned counsel further submitted that though the employment advertisement was a centralized advertisement, the applicant had applied against a vacancy under RRB, Patna. Therefore, any dispute arising out of the said advertisement is required to be adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal having jurisdiction over the concerned RRB, i.e. the Patna Bench. Thus, he submitted that the present Original Application cannot be adjudicated by the Allahabad Bench.
Learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, submitted that the candidature of the applicant was rejected on the ground that he had not submitted certain documents mentioned in the application form for availing fee relaxation. He further submitted that candidates claiming fee concession on the basis of a BPL Card were required to produce a certificate issued by the competent authority at the time of document verification and the applicant had duly complied with the said requirement.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction should have been raised by the respondents at an earlier stage. He submitted that the counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged and the matter is now listed for final hearing. Therefore, according to him, the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction has lost its significance. He further submitted that the applicant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench and, therefore, he was justified in approaching this Tribunal.
We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
It is not in dispute that the applicant was residing at Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, at the time of filing the present Original Application. Deoria (Uttar Pradesh) falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal.
Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 deals with the place of filing of an application and reads as under:
“6.Place of filing application.—(1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction—
(i)the applicant is posted for the time being, or
(ii)the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen: Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under section 25, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application.”
From a plain reading of Rule 6(1), it is clear that an application is ordinarily required to be filed before the Bench within whose jurisdiction the applicant is posted or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen. The mere fact that the applicant is residing at Deoria State of Uttar Pradesh does not give territorial jurisdiction to this Bench in a matter arising out of the recruitment process in question.
In the present case, paragraph 18.4 of the advertisement clearly provides that any dispute arising out of the said CEN shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal having jurisdiction over the concerned RRB. Therefore, the applicant cannot file the present Original Application before this Bench merely because he is residing at Deoria State of Uttar Pradesh.
It is relevant to note that a similar issue was considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Yuvrajsingh Dilipsingh Zala, Special Civil Application No. 4528 of 2016, decided on 14.06.2016, wherein it was held as under:
“4.01At 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 including clause 11, thereafter it will not be open for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner still can approach any other forum other than the forum mentioned in clause 11 of the employment notice. As such the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the said employment notice pursuant to which he applied for the post in question. It is an admitted position that the petitioner never challenged the terms and conditions of the employment notice and therefore, now the petitioner cannot contend that despite clause 11 of the employment notice, Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, would have jurisdiction.
4.04In the case of ABC Laminart Pvt Ltd Versus A P Agencies, Salem reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163, the Hon‟ble 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 Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that such a contract and ouster of jurisdiction is not against public policy. It is held by the Hon‟ble 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 Hon‟ble 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.
4.05Again the same proposition of law has been pronounced by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs Universal Petro Chemicals Limited reported in (2009) 3 SCC 107. Courts/High Courts, the aforesaid clause 11 is provided conferring the jurisdiction only in the tribunal/Court in Bombay. Therefore, it appears that there is valid reason to provide ouster clause 11.
4.06Considering the fact that it was a centralized recruitment and the applications were invited from all over the country, with a view to see that there may not be different proceedings in different. Courts/High Courts, the aforesaid clause 11 is provided conferring the jurisdiction only in the tribunal/Court in Bombay. Therefore, it appears that there is valid reason to provide ouster clause 11.
4.07Now, so far as the reliance placed upon Rule 6 of the Rules is concerned, it is required to be noted that even if part cause of action might have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, still the question is whether in light of the ouster clause 11 of the employment notice referred to hereinabove, any legal proceedings arising out of and/or in respect to the employment notice, the jurisdiction would vest only with the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench or High Court, Mumbai only.
4.08In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error in returning the Original Application to the petitioner herein to present it before the appropriate forum/court having jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the dispute…” (emphasis supplied)
We have also noted that in a controversy of similar nature arising from the Employment Notice dated 15.12.2010 issued by the Railway Recruitment Cell, Jabalpur, the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal, on 03.01.2019, held as follows in OA No. 547 of 2017 Hariom Meena vs M/o Railway & Ors:
“12.In the conspectus of discussions made hereinabove, we are not inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for the original applicant that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Yuvraj Singh Dilip Singh Zala (supra) is per incuriam. We also do not find any substance in his argument that since the applicant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench of the Tribunal, therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 read with Section 19(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the jurisdiction ouster clause as contained in Para 17 of the Employment Notice dated 15.12.2010 is invalid and the Original Application cannot be returned because of lack of territorial jurisdiction. We, thus, hold that the Original Application .cannot be entertained before this Tribunal and the same is liable to be returned to the applicant.” (emphasis supplied)
Coming to the present case, Advertisement No. 01/2018 was a centralized employment advertisement issued by the Railways. The applicant applied against a vacancy under RRB, Patna. Paragraph 18.4 of the advertisement specifically provides that any legal issue arising out of the said CEN shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal having jurisdiction over the concerned RRB. Thus, in the present case, the concerned Bench is the Patna Bench of this Tribunal.
In our opinion, the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction in the present case is covered by the principles laid down in Yuvrajsingh Dilipsingh Zala (supra) and Hariom Meena (supra). The fact that the applicant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench cannot, by itself, confer jurisdiction upon this Bench contrary to the specific condition contained in the employment advertisement.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that this Bench has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present Original Application. Since the case is an old matter and the pleadings have already been exchanged, instead of returning the Original Application to the applicant, we deem it appropriate to send the case records to the Registry of the Principal Bench, New Delhi, for placing the matter before the Hon’ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, with a request to consider for transfer of the present Original Application to the Patna Bench under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Accordingly, the Registry of this Bench shall send the complete case records to the Registry of the Principal Bench, New Delhi, for placing the matter before the Hon’ble Chairman for appropriate orders under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.