Sayresh Dhavj Dhangda v. Staff Selection Commission and Anr

Delhi High Court · 10 Jan 2025 · 2025:DHC:149-DB

Navin Chawla; Ravinder Dudeja

W.P.(C) 17991/2024

2025:DHC:149-DB

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

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

Full Text

W.P.(C) 17991/2024
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10.01.2025

W.P.(C) 17991/2024 & CM APPL. 76543/2024
SAYRESH DHAVJ DHANGDA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Neetu Kumari, Mr. G. K.
Shukla, Advocates.

VERSUS

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Detailed Medical Report dated 23.10.2024, and the Review Medical Report dated 04.11.2024, declaring the petitioner unfit for appointment in the Physical Standard Test (in short, ‘PST’) in the selection process for the post of the Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (in short, ‘CRPF’), Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Secretariat Security Force (SSF), and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination- 2024.

2. The petitioner has applied for the said post pursuant to the Notice dated 24.11.2023 issued by the respondents for the appointment to the above posts. Clause 18 of the said advertisement reads as under:

“18 Court’s Jurisdiction: Any dispute in regard to this recruitment will be subject to courts having jurisdiction over the place of Regional Office concerned of the Commission where the candidate has appeared for the Computer Based Examination.”

3. Admittedly, the petitioner has not appeared for the Computer Based Examination in Delhi. His PST was also not conducted in Delhi.

4. This Court, on an objection of the respondents for lack of territorial jurisdiction for adjudicating a petition raising a similar issue, in its Order 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 parties and perused the record, we are of the considered view that once the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner had applied contained a specific 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 clauses mentioned in the advertisement are not binding on him. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court having territorial jurisdiction.”

5. 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.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has served a legal notice dated 11.11.2024 to the respondents. He submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the same.

7. As we have held that this court would not like to entertain the present petition on merits, we merely record that it shall be open to the respondents to consider the legal notice dated 11.11.2024 of petitioner, notwithstanding the dismissal of the present petition.

8. All pending applications are also disposed of.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J JANUARY 10, 2025 PK/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Sayresh Dhavj Dhangda v. Staff Selection Commission and Anr

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation