AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.Y. Kogje, J
Two petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated
14.08.2015 passed in OA No.418 of 2014.
Special Civil Application No.18244 of 2016 is filed by the Union of India and Others (Original Respondents) and Special Civil Application No.15829
of 2015 is filed by the original applicant (respondent candidate) of OA No.418 of 2014.
As both these petitions are directed against the same order of the CAT and the parties being common, with consent of the learned Advocates for
both the sides, these two petitions are jointly taken up for hearing and disposal.
The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these two petitions are as under.
A) The Railway Recruitment Cell Western Railways, Mumbai issued a Notification on 16.12.2010 for filling up of 8054 vacancies in ClassÂIV
categories.
B) Pursuant to this Notification, an advertisement was issued. In the advertisement, various Clauses were enumerated for the purpose of filling up the
applications for the posts advertised.
C) It was found that the application filled by the respondent (candidate) was not in conformity with the Clauses mentioned in the advertisement viz.,
the application form was required to be filled in the hand writing of the candidate whereas, the application form of the respondent (candidate)
appeared to have been filled in partly by some other person.
D) Though the respondent candidate was permitted to appear in the written examination, the authorities were in the process of scrutinizing as to
whether the case was restricted only to the different hand writing in the application form or it was a case of impersonation.
E) The application of the respondent candidate came to be summarily rejected on the basis of the opinion given by the hand writing expert that the
hand writing in the written examination/interview were not matching with the hand writing in the application form.
F) This decision of rejecting the application was challenged by the respondentÂcandidate by filing OA No.148 of 2014 which came to be partly
allowed. While allowing the application of the respondent partly, directions were issued for sending the documents for very verification and for fresh
opinion.
G) The respondent candidate challenged this order dated 14.08.2015 in OA No.418 of 2014 mainly on the ground, amongst other grounds that the
Employment Notification (Advertisement) did not stipulate as a mandatory requirement that the candidate as to submit his application in his own hand
writing and only the declaration under the application form is required to be in hand writing. Therefore, the direction of the CAT Ahmedabad, for
reexamination of the hand writing is of no consequence.
H) The Union of India has based its challenge to the order of CAT on the ground of jurisdiction contending that any legal dispute in connection with
the Employment Notification dated 16.02.2010 could be entertained by CAT, Mumbai Bench only. The Union of India has also challenged the
impugned order on merits.
Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the Union of India and Shri M.S.Rao for the respondent candidate. Learned Advocate for the
Union has taken this Court through the relevant Clauses of the advertisement particularly Clause 17 of the detailed Notification dated 16.12.2010. He
also pointed out Clause 8.11 which reads as under:
“8.11 Invalid Applications:
The application having any of the following deficiencies for irregularities will be summarily rejected:
(i) applications not submitted in prescribed format as given in this employment notice.
(ii) incomplete or illegible applications, or applications not filled with black ink/black ball point pen, or applications with overwriting,
cutting or erasing marks.
(iii) unsigned/undated applications without clear and unÂsmudged thumb impressions and/or without Marks of Identification.
(iv) without photograph or affixing/attaching xerox copy of photograph.
(v) different signatures in box below in the photo, on application form and personal data sheet.
(vi) without bank draft/postal orders of requisite value and validity.
(vii) applications not filled in English or Hindi or not filled by candidate in his own hand writing.
(viii) applications without para 06 of application form, written in candidate’s own hand writing.
(ix) without proper certificates, in respect of SC/ST/OBC should be obtained from the appropriate authority in the prescribed format.
(x) under aged/over aged candidates.
(xi) not having the requisite Educational Qualifications at the time of submitting application.
(xii) applications received after 17.00 hrs. on closing date by any means/modes.
(xiii) Photocopies of the certificates not attested by Gazetted officer.
(xiv) More than one application in one name or sent in one envelope.
(xv) Postal orders/bank drafts issued before the date of issue of Employment Notice (i.e. 16/12/10) or with less than six months validity.
(xvi) Any other deemed irregularity.â€
Learned Advocate though contended that even on merits the case of the respondent candidate does not deserve any consideration yet has
restricted his arguments to the point of jurisdiction and has invited this Court’s attention to oral judgment dated 14.06.2016 rendered by this Court
in SCA No.4528/2016 (AnnexureÂE) wherein this Court has proceeded to consider ClauseÂ11 of the Employment Notice which is similar to
ClauseÂ17 of the present case and held that in view of the specific Clause restricting the territorial jurisdiction with CAT Mumbai Bench then in that
case it is the CAT Mumbai Bench which will have the jurisdiction to deal with the legal dispute arising out of such Employment Notice. He further
contends that the respondent candidate is not justified in taking a uÂturn after having subjected himself to the Clauses mentioned in the Employment
Notification and having participated in such process.
As against this, learned Advocate Shri M.S.Rao for the respondent candidate has opposed the petition of the Union of India contending that his right
to relief cannot be scuttled on a technical ground like jurisdiction. He submits that as the respondent candidate belongs to Gujarat, he appeared for the
examination at a center located in Ahmedabad within the State of Gujarat, therefore, the jurisdiction to decide the case will also lie with CAT Bench at
Ahmedabad. Beyond this, learned Advocate has fairly conceded that he is not able to seriously dispute ClauseÂ17 and the view taken by Coordinate
Bench of this Court in SCA No.4528/2016.
Clause 17 of the detailed Notification dated 16.12.2010 reads as under:
“17. For any legal dispute, the Jurisdiction will be at Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai only.â€
This Clause is identically worded to the Clause which was in consideration before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SCA No.4528/2016 and
therefore, this Court is in respectful agreement with the conclusion drawn by the Coordinate Bench of this Court interpreting the similar Clause which
restricted the jurisdiction only to the Tribunal Mumbai Bench.The conclusion in the aforementioned case is recorded by this Court in paragraph 4.06
and 4.07 which reads as under:
“4.06 Again the same proposition of law has been pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board
Versus Universal Petrol Chemicals Limited reported in (2009) 3 SCC 107.
4.07. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon Rule 6 of the Rules is concerned, it is required to be noted that even if part clause 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.
In the instant case also therefore, this Court is of the considered view that on the strength of ClauseÂ17, the jurisdiction to entertain any legal dispute
arising out of the detailed Notification dated 16.12.2010 would lie with the Mumbai Bench of CAT. This Court is also of the view that the respondent
candidate who has made an application pursuant to the Employment Notification is deemed to have accepted all the Clauses which are contained in
the said Notification and by making such application, he has impliedly subjected himself to the Clauses which are the part of the detailed Notification.
Therefore, once having accepted the condition prescribed in the form and Clauses in the Employment Notification, the petition shall remain bound to
such Clauses and cannot be permitted to deviate, howsoever convenient it may be for the respondent candidate to raise a legal dispute out of a
detailed Notification before any CAT Bench other than the CAT Mumbai Bench.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation in holding that any legal dispute arising out of the detailed Notification dated 16.12.2010, the
jurisdiction to deal with such legal dispute would lie with CAT, Mumbai Bench only and hence, the order impugned in both these petitions dated
14.08.2015 passed in OA No.418 of 2014 is hereby quashed.
As the order impugned is hereby quashed on the ground of jurisdiction, it will be open for the respondent candidate to challenge the decision of the
Western Railway and Deputy Chief Personal Officer (Railway Recruitment Cell) which is the subject matter of challenge before the CAT
Ahmedabad Bench in OA No.214 of 2014 before the CAT Mumbai Bench. As the respondent candidate was in genuine litigation with regard to the
subject matter before a different forum, it goes without showing that any application made by the respondent candidate before the CAT Mumbai
would be saved by relevant provisions of the Limitation Act.
With the aforesaid, Special Civil Application No.18244 is allowed and rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Consequently, Special Civil
Application No.15829 stands rejected. In the facts of this case, no order as to costs.