Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 14 Jan 2025 · 2025:DHC:205-DB

Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur

W.P.(C) 405/2025

2025:DHC:205-DB

administrative petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging medical unfitness in CRPF recruitment for lack of territorial jurisdiction, upholding the binding nature of jurisdiction clauses in recruitment advertisements.

Full Text

W.P.(C)405/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 14.01.2025

W.P.(C) 405/2025
GAURAV KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Singh & Ms. Nisha Dhaka, Advs.

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Adv. (appearance not given)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 2073/2025

JUDGMENT

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 405/2025 & CM APPL. 2072/2025

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Review Medical Examination dated 26.11.2024, declaring the petitioner unfit (on account of weight more than 5 kg of upper limit of 72 kg & tattoo over right forearm size 6 cm x 1.[5] cm, saluting limb) for appointment to the post of Non-Gazetted, Group C, Constable (Driver) in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Constable (Technical and Tradesman) Recruitment Examination, 2023 under the SC category.

3. 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.”

4. Admittedly, the petitioner has not appeared for the Computer Based Examination in Delhi. His Physical Standard Test (“PST”) was also not conducted in Delhi.

5. This Court, on an objection of the respondents for lack of territorial jurisdiction for adjudicating a petition raising a similar issue, in its final Order/Judgment 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 the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner had applied contained aspecific clause providing for territorial jurisdiction of the Court/Tribunal situated 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, disposed of, by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court having territorial jurisdiction.”

6. 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.

7. The pending application is also disposed of.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J JANUARY 14, 2025/ab/sk/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation