Rana Mandal v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 03 Dec 2024 · 2024:DHC:9417-DB

Navin Chawla; Girish Kathpalia

W.P.(C) 16691/2024

2024:DHC:9417-DB

administrative petition_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

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

Full Text

W.P.(C) 16691/2024
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 03.12.2024

W.P.(C) 16691/2024
RANA MANDAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ankit Bhadoria, Mr.Umesh Singh, Ms.Karishma and
Mr.Ashok Nagar, Advs.

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Udit Dedhiya, SPC

WITH

Mr.Sanjay Pal, GP
Mr.Ajay Pal, Law Officer Mr.Shiv Kumar Singh, Pairvi
Officer, CRPF

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

JUDGMENT

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 70611/2024 & CM APPL. 70612/2024 (Exemption)

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Detailed Medical Report dated 15.10.2024 and the Review Medical Report dated 17.10.2024, declaring the petitioner unfit for appointment in the Physical Standard Test (in short, ‘PST’) (due to defective distant vision VA 6/24 RT Eye, and 6.24 LT. Eye) in the selection process for the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed W.P.(C) 16691/2024 & CM APPL. 70610/2024 Police Forces (CAPFs), Secretariat Security Force (SSF), and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination- 2024.

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 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 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 partiesand perused the record, we are of the considered view that once theadvertisement pursuant to which the petitioner had applied contained aspecific clause providing for territorial jurisdiction of the Court/Tribunalsituated 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, disposedof, 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 GIRISH KATHPALIA, J DECEMBER 3, 2024/sg/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Rana Mandal v. Union of India

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation