Allowed

Rajesh Km , v. the Deputy Commissioner

Kerala HC28 Feb 2024OP (CAT)/32/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order against an OT order of the Central Administrative Tribunal found the petitioners' challenge to their non-selection in a centralized recruitment maintainable in Delhi. The Kerala bench held jurisdiction lay in Delhi as the cause of action arose there, dismissing the appeal as the Tribunal correctly found the challenge not maintainable in Kerala.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the impugned order of withholding jurisdiction is dismissed.

Rajesh Km , Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945
OP (CAT) NO. 32 OF 2024

¶7

AGAINST ORDER/JUDGMENT IN O.A.NO.180/00586/2023 DATED 22.01.2024
BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

¶8

PETITIONER/S/APPLICANT:

¶9

1 RAJESH KM ,

¶10

AGED 47 YEARS S/O V V KUMARAN 'BUVI', PUTHARIYADUKKAM P.O NEAR BLOCK OFFICE NILESHWARAM NILESWARAM, KASARGOD, PIN - 671314

¶11

2 SYAM PR , AGED 41 YEARS

¶12

S/O ROY PR, PUTHENKANDATHIL HOUSE, WEST KODIKULAM P.O
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685582

¶13

BY ADVS.
RATHEESH B.

¶14

GYOTHISH CHANDRAN

¶15

RESPONDENT/S/RESPONDENT:

¶16

1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, REGIONAL OFFICE-ERNAKULAM
KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI, PIN - 682020

¶17

2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER PERSONNEL, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, 18 - INSTITUTIONAL AREA SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110016

¶18

3 THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN,18 - INSTITUTIONAL AREA SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110016

¶19

4 THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN,18 - INSTITUTIONAL AREA SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110016

¶20

5 THE CHIEF OF THE AIR STAFF, AIR HEADQUARTERS (VB), NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011

¶21

6 DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF AIR VETERANS, AIR HEADQUARTERS SUBROTO PARK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110010

¶22

7 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, 122-C, SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

¶23

OP (CAT) NO. 32 OF 2024

¶24

2

¶25

8 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE(DEPARTMENT OF EX SERVICEMEN WELFARE) SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011

¶26

9 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001

¶27

K.S.Prenjith Kumar,CGC

¶28

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶29

OP (CAT) NO. 32 OF 2024

¶30

¶31

J U D G M E N T [Dated this the 28^th day of February,2024]

¶32

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,J

¶33

The petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal is before us with this original petition. The Tribunal, based on the stipulations in the notification and also adverting to the fact that the petitioner has no cause of action to move the territorial Tribunal in Kerala, found that the challenge is not maintainable.

¶34

As seen from Annexure - A1 notification, the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) invited applications for various posts. This is a centralised recruitment being undertaken by the Kendriya Vidyalaya from Delhi. The applications are invited online. One of the stipulations in the notification is that, any dispute with regard to the recruitment shall be subject to the court having jurisdiction in Delhi only.

¶35

The petitioners herein challenged their non-selection before the Regional Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal at Ernakulam. As we noted above, it was found that the application is not maintainable.

¶36

We have serious doubt as to the proposition of law referred in the impugned order as to the maintainability of the petition based

¶37

¶38

OP (CAT) NO. 32 OF 2024

¶39

on the advertisement notification. Anyway, we are leaving open that issue. However, we find that no part of cause of action arose for the petitioners merely based on the fact that they are residents of State of Kerala. The entire recruitment process of selection is being undertaken by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Delhi. The cause of action means the bundle of facts, which give rise to action to enforce a right in the Court of law. Selection, recruitment and all procedures in these matters are being processed and undertaken from Delhi itself. Mainly based on the place of residence, one cannot create a cause of action, unless there is any consequential action taken place within the place of residence.

¶40

It is clear that under Rule 6 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, the jurisdiction is based on the factors referred therein. Here in this case, it must be based on cause of action wholly or in partly arisen within the State of Kerala. Application was made online and the examination was conducted online. Certificate verification was made in Delhi. Petitioners submit that cause of action arose within the State of Kerala for the reason that petitioners logged in computer to make online application from Kerala and appeared for the examination online from Kerala. It is to be noted that petitioners are challenging selection. If any consequence arose based on selection within the State of Kerala, no

¶41

OP (CAT) NO. 32 OF 2024

¶42

5

¶43

doubt he would be entitled to sue in Kerala. The petitioners challenged the selection and non-inclusion in the merit list. The entire cause of action in this regard, according to us, has arisen only within the jurisdiction of Delhi, not in the State of Kerala. Cause of action must be related to the cause on which he explores his right. The place of residence from where he has applied online cannot itself create a right for him to challenge an action, which arose beyond the jurisdiction of the State of Kerala.

¶44

In view of the fact that, no part of cause of action arose for the petitioners to move the Central Administrative Tribunal within the State of Kerala, we find that the impugned order does not require any interference.

¶45

The Original Petition is thus dismissed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶50

RK/MBS

¶51

OP (CAT) NO. 32 OF 2024

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 32/2024

¶54

`PETITION` `Annexure`	`ER ANNEX` `A-1`	`URES` `TRUE COPY` `NO.15/2022`	`OF DETA`	`ILED ADVE`	`RTIS`	`EMENT`
`Annexure`	`A-2`	`TRUE COPY` `APPLICANT`	`OF ADMIT`	`CARD OF`	`THE`	`1ST`
`Annexure`	`A-3`	`TRUE COPY` `APPLICANT`	`OF ADMIT`	`CARD OF`	`THE`	`2ND`
`Annexure`	`A-4`	`TRUE COPY` `LISTED` `PUBLISHED` `(WWW.KVSAN` `SR.NO.186)`	`OF LIST O` `FOR` `DOCU` `ON` `GATHAN.NIC.`	`F CANDIDA` `MENT` `VER` `13.06.20` `IN/ ANNOUN`	`TES` `IFIC` `23` `CEMEN`	`SHORT` `ATION` `IN` `T/`
`Annexure`	`A-5`	`TRUE COPY` `PUBLISHED` `NIC` `.IN/ANN`	`OF LIST OF` `ON 27.10.20` `OUNCEMENT/S`	`SELECTED C` `23 WWW.KVS` `R.NO.42`	`ANDI` `ANGAT`	`DATES` `HAN.`
`Annexure`	`A-6`	`TRUE COPY` `SELECTED` `ALLOTMENT` `WWW.KVSANG` `O.39`	`OF LIST` `CANDIDATES` `PUBLISH` `ATHAN.NIC.I`	`OF PROV` `WITH REG` `EDON` `2` `N/ANNOUNCE`	`ISIO` `ION` `7.10` `MENT/`	`NALLY` `WISE` `.2023` `SR.N`
`Annexure`	`A-7`	`TRUE COPY` `KVS/HQ/ RP`	`OF RTI REPL` `S/3314-15 D`	`Y NO. 1101` `ATED 14.11`	`1/2/` `.2023`	`2023/`
`Annexure`	`A-8`	`TRUE COPY` `MARKSHEET` `IGNOU`	`OF GRADUAT` `OF THE 1ST`	`ION CERTIF` `APPLICANT`	`ICATE` `ISSU`	`AND` `ED BY`
`Annexure`	`A-9`	`TRUE COPY` `APPLICANT` `ISSUED BY`	`OF PAY` `FOR THE` `INDIAN AIR`	`SLIP OF` `MONTH OF` `FORCE`	`THE` `JAN`	`1ST` `2022`
`Annexure`	`A-10`	`TRUE COPY` `ISSUED BY`	`OF PPO OF` `INDIAN AIR`	`THE 1ST` `FORCE`	`APPL`	`ICANT`
`Annexure`	`A-11`	`TRUE COPY` `CERTIFICAT`	`OF TRAD` `E ISSUED BY`	`E AND EQ` `INDIAN AI`	`UIVA` `R FOR`	`LENCY` `CE`
`Annexure`	`A-12`	`TRUE COPY` `APPLICANT`	`OF DISCHAR` `ISSUED BY I`	`GE BOOK O` `NDIAN AIR`	`F THE` `FORCE`	`1ST`
`Annexure`	`A-13`	`TRUE COPY` `MARKSHEET` `IGNOU`	`OF GRADUAT` `OF THE 2ND`	`ION CERTIF` `APPLICANT`	`ICATE` `ISSU`	`AND` `ED BY`
`Annexure`	`A-14`	`TRUE COPY` `APPLICANT`	`OF PAY` `FOR THE`	`SLIP OF` `MONTH OF`	`THE` `DEC`	`2ND` `2021`

¶55

¶56

OP (CAT) NO. 32 OF 2024

¶57

ISSUED BY INDIAN AIR FORCE
Annexure A-15TRUE COPY OF PPO OF THE 2ND APPLICANT
ISSUED BY INDIAN AIR FORCE
Annexure A-16TRUE COPY OF TRADE AND EQUIVALENCY
CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND APPLICANT ISSUED
BY INDIAN AIR FORCE
Annexure A- 17TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE BOOK OF THE 2ND
APPLICANT ISSUED BY INDIAN AIR FORCE
Annexure A-18MA NO. 1071 OF 2023 FOR JOINING TOGETHER
Exhibit P-1TRUE COPY OF O.A NO. 180/00586/2023
ALONG WITH ALL ANNEXURES
Exhibit P-2TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.12.2023 IN
OA NO.180/00586/2023
Exhibit P-3TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.12.2023 IN
OA NO. 180/00586/2023
Exhibit P-4TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.01.2024 IN
OA NO. 180/00586/2023
Exhibit P-5TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.01.2024 IN
OA NO. 180/00586/2023
Exhibit P-6TRUE COPY OF CONFIRMATION PAGE
DOWNLOADED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR
APPLICATION NO. 22300643339 AT INTERNET
PROTOCOL(IP)ADDRESSNO.
103.179.196.182
Exhibit P-7TRUE COPY OF CONFIRMATION PAGE
DOWNLOADED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR
APPLICATION NO. 22300712480 AT INTERNET
PROTOCOL (IP) ADDRESS NO. 103.148.21.46
Exhibit P-8TRUE COPY OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT IN ANITA KUSHWAHA V. PUSHAP
SUDAN & 11 OTHERS IN TP (C) NO.1343 OF
2008& ORS

Rajesh Km , v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Km , v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala, Vs Aneesh Francis

Ida Sarojam Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kadeer Churian Parambil Vs Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk

G Nxt Power Corp Vs Union of India

Sudha M T Vs Meghshree, the Director,Scheduled Tribes Development Department

Sarith K Vs State of Kerala