Quashed

Kishan Lal Jat v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC22 May 2024CW/8253/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of an application on grounds of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held that statutory jurisdiction under the Procedure Rules overrides advertisement conditions, quashed the order, and restored the matter for decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's order dated 20.02.2024 was quashed and set aside; the matter was restored to the Tribunal's docket for decision on merits.

Kishan Lal Jat Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:23088-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8253/2024

¶4

Kishan Lal Jat S/o Udai Ram Jat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Nadi Ka Kuwa, Falichda Khedi, Post Falichada, Tehsil Mavli, Udaipur Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Through The General Manager, Headquaters, Western Railways, Mumbai 400001

¶8

Chairman Of Railway Board, Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 110001

¶9

The Assistant Personnel Officer, Recruitment Cell, Personal Branch, CSMT, Mumbai 400001

¶10

Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar, Near Heritage Rajasthan High Court Campus, Jodhpur

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. O.P. Sangwa with
	Mr. Bheru Lal Jat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit,Dy.S.G.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶14

Judgment

¶15

Date of Judgment :: 22/05/2024

¶16

Per Hon’ble Mehta, J (Oral):

¶17

REPORTABLE

¶18

By way of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 20.02.2024, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby his Original Application No. 459/2023 (Kishan Lal Jat vs. Union of India & Ors.) which was preferred under section 19 of the

¶19

(2 of 6)

¶20

[2024:RJ-JD:23088-DB]

¶21

[CW-8253/2024]

¶22

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1985’) has been rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

¶23

The requisite facts within the precincts of the issue involved are that the petitioner - a resident of Udaipur, vied for the post of Group ‘D’ in Level 1 pursuant to Centralised Employment Notice No. RRC-01/2019 dated 23.02.2019 (‘CEN’ in brief) notified by the Railway Recruitment Board, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RRB, Mumbai’), whereby online applications were invited for various posts.

¶24

The petitioner was though provisionally selected after successfully clearing various stages of recruitment, but was not accorded posting, as a criminal case was pending against him.

¶25

It is to be mentioned and noted that the petitioner is not only a resident of Udaipur, but also was allotted examination center at Udaipur - ‘Raghav Infotech D C Tak Compound Adarsh Nagar, Opposite Pacific University, Near Transport Nagar, Air Port Road’.

¶26

Feeling aggrieved of non issuance of appointment order, the petitioner preferred an Original Application under section 19 of the Act of 1985 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur. Said Original Application was rejected by the Tribunal, while holding that it lacked the territorial jurisdiction. While doing so, the Tribunal observed that since the petitioner had applied pursuant to an advertisement issued by the RRB, Mumbai, the jurisdiction to deal with any issue arising out of the recruitment in question vests

¶27

[2024:RJ-JD:23088-DB]

¶28

[CW-8253/2024]

¶29

(3 of 6)

¶30

in the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench at Mumbai, as has been provided in clause 20.4 of the Centralised Employment Notice (CEN).

¶31

Mr. Sangwa, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal has erred in non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. He highlighted that the petitioner is a resident of Udaipur and he had been allotted center to appear in the competitive examination at Udaipur and therefore, he was justified in invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction at Jodhpur Bench, particularly because a substantial cause of action had accrued in Udaipur, falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Jodhpur Bench.

¶32

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of rule 6 of The Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1987’) and submitted that the petitioner was justified in invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction at Jodhpur Bench instead of going to Mumbai, where the office of Railway Recruitment Board is situate.

¶33

Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India submitted that in the face of clause 20.4 of CEN, the petitioner was required to approach Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. He submitted that the conditions of CEN were very clear and binding upon the petitioner and thus, it cannot be said that an error has been committed by the Tribunal in rejecting petitioner’s Original Application on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

¶34

[2024:RJ-JD:23088-DB]

¶35

[CW-8253/2024]

¶36

(4 of 6)

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

Before proceeding, we would like to reproduce rule 6(1)(ii) of the Rules of 1987, determinitive of the powers of the Tribunal, so far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned. Rule 6(1)(ii) reads as under:-

¶39

“ 6. Place for filing application.- (1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction-

¶40

(i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or

¶41

(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. ”

¶42

Clause 20.4 of CEN reads thus:-

¶43

“Any legal issues arising out of this CEN shall fall within the legal jurisdiction of respective Central Administrative Tribunals under which the RRB/RRC concerned is located.”

¶44

True it is, that if the clause 20.4 of CEN alone is considered,

¶45

it gives an impression that the dispute relating to subject recruitment has to be raised before the Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai, but in any case, clause 20.4 is only a condition of the advertisement, whereas clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of rule 6 is a statutory provision. The Rules of 1987 shall have precedence over any condition of recruitment/advertisement and hence, the Original Application cannot be rejected or returned.

¶46

(5 of 6)

¶47

[2024:RJ-JD:23088-DB]

¶48

[CW-8253/2024]

¶49

The Railways/Union of India or any instrumentality of State cannot incorporate a condition in the advertisement and confine the jurisdiction to suit its convenience if not whims. The Union of India cannot take away or bar jurisdiction by unilaterally appending a clause in the advertisement.

¶50

According to us, invoking jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 19 of the Act of 1985, is essentially a substitute of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, a citizen’s right to take remedies cannot be curtailed by way of any administrative instructions or terms of an advertisement.

¶51

In our considered view, when the RRB, Mumbai has provided and established a center at Udaipur to appear in the examination and when the recruitment was opened to all the citizens residing in length and breadth of this vast country, the persons/candidates situate in different parts of the country cannot be compelled to approach the Tribunal at Mumbai. This according to us, would be violative of fundamental rights of a citizen and such condition in the CEN would be in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶52

Apart from above, there is yet another facet of the matter. A perusal of communication dated 08.06.2023 (Annexure-A/7) enclosed with the copy of Original Application shows that the RRB had recommended the name of the petitioner or he has been empanelled by RRC/BB. We are of the firm view that once the recommendation has been made, the ball is out of the court of

¶53

[2024:RJ-JD:23088-DB]

¶54

[CW-8253/2024]

¶55

(6 of 6)

¶56

RRB. The dispute before the Tribunal was not about rejection of petitioner’s candidature, eligibility or merit in the recruitment process, but non-grant of appointment. It is not the eligibility, but the suitability which is under question. Suitability is to be adjudged by the employer namely Railways and it was the action of the Assistant Personnel Officer (respondent no.3), which in essence is subject matter of the dispute before the Tribunal.

¶57

Once the petitioner has been empanelled, the terms of the advertisement including that relating to the forum or territorial jurisdiction became otiose. After the empanellment, it ceases to continue as a dispute relating to recruitment. The Tribunal has, therefore, fallen into apparent error of law and facts, in nonsuiting the petitioner on the premise of clause 20.4 of CEN.

¶58