Reeta Yadav v. Reserve Bank of India

1. By way of present petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek setting aside of the result of the interview in Reserve Bank ofIndia (RBI) Assistant Examination 2015 being unfair and bias and further seeks direction to the respondent to conduct fresh inteiwiew of the petitioner.

2. Since both the petitions involve common question of law, both the petitions are being taken up together. For the sake ofconvenience the facts are being taken up from W.P.(C) No.3976/2016. Petitioner Mr. Nitin K. Gupta, Advocate. Respondent Mr. K.S. Parihar, Advocate. Petitioner Mr. Nitin K. Gupta, Advocate. Respondent Mr. K.S. Parihar, Advocate. Page 1 of[3] 2016:DHC:8915

3. The respondent, Reserve Bank of India issued an advertisement for the post ofAssistant in Reserve Bank of India for its various offices all over India.

4. The petitioner also applied and appeared in the qualifying exam as an OBC category candidate. She secured 180 out of 200 marks in the online examination and was called for interview. The petitioner appeared in the interview but was given 2.75 marks out of 35 marks and hence declared unsuccessful.

5. Without going into the merits of the case, I am of the view that this Court has no territorialjurisdiction to entertainthe present petition as no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, much less sub-clause (xxvi) of clause 8 of the advertisement issued by the respondent specifically provides that the Courts/ Tribunals/ Forums at Mumbai only shall have the jurisdiction to try and cause/ dispute. The said clause is reproduced as under; - "(xvi) Any legal proceedings in respect of any matter of claim or dispute arising out of this advertisement and/ or an application in response thereto can be instituted only in Mumbai and courts/ tribunals/ forums at Mumbai only shall have sole and exclusivejurisdiction to try any cause/ dispute."

6. In view of the specific clause in the advertisement regarding jurisdiction to try and cause/ dispute, this Court hasnojurisdiction to trythe present petition. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. Since,I Page 2 of[3] V have not touched upon the merits, it shall be open to the petitioner(s) to approach the appropriate Court to seek Redressal oftheir grievances. V.P.VAISH, J MAY 09,2016 hs Page 3 of[3]