Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mohd. Mohiuddin S/O Shamsuddin Ahmed vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2010
[Reserved]
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH,
ALLAHABAD
This, the 21st day of December, 2010
PRESENT
HONBLE MR. S.N. SHUKLA, MEMBER (A)
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
Original Application No. 650/2009
(U/Sec. 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
Mohd. Mohiuddin S/o Shamsuddin Ahmed
R/o Shahkuti Hanumanpur, P.S. Mughalsarai,
District. Chandauli. . Applicant
Vs.
1. Union of India, through
Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board,
Kolkatta, Metro Railway, A.V. Complex,
Chitppur, Opp: to R.G. Kar Road, Kolkatta 700 037.
2. The Assistant Secretary,
Railway Recruitment Board,
Kolkatta, Metro Railway, A.V. Complex,
Chippur, Opp. To R.G. Road, Kolkatta. 700 037.. Respondents
Advocate for the Applicant .. Sri V.Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents .. Sri P.N. Rai.
O R D E R
{DELIVERED BY HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)} The Applicant has filed the instant Original Application under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 challenging the order dated Ist April, 2009 passed by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Calcutta i.e. Respondent No.1 (Annexure A.1) whereby the candidature of the Applicant has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.1 issued an Advertisement in the Indian Railways Employment Notice No.1/2003 dated 13.6.2003, whereby advertising certain posts of Group D . The last date of submitting the application was 28.7.2003. The Applicant who belongs to the Backward Class Category, submitted his application. He was called for written examination and was declared successful by the Respondents. Thereafter, on 11.4.2004 he was called for physical test and verification of certificates. The Applicant appeared before the Respondent No.1. On 15.7.2007, a Notification was published by the Respondent No.1 notifying the Roll Nos. of the candidates who have been rejected for empanelment on the ground of failure to produce original certificates. Roll. No. of the Applicant appeared in that Notification i.e. Roll No. 1074811.
3. The Applicant submitted a detailed representation to Respondents No. 1 on 20.12.2007. When respondent did not decide the same then he approached this Tribunal by filing Original Application i.e. O.A. No. 1631/2008 before this Tribunal which was disposed of vide judgement dated 16.2.2009 (Annexure A.8). From the bare perusal of the same it is clear that this Tribunal vide afore-stated order directed the Respondents to decide the representation of the Applicant within a period of two months by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. This Tribunal directed the Applicant to file a certified copy of the order within four weeks from the date of order before the concerned competent authority and the said authority shall decide the representation within two months by passing a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law.
4. In this background, the impugned order dated Ist April, 2009 was passed by Respondent No.1 (Annexure A.1) rejecting the claim of the Applicant as the Applicant did not fulfill the provisions prescribed in para 16.8 of the Employment Notice and his candidature has been rejected on this ground alone.
5. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Sri Chandra Kumar Rai has vehemently argued that the action of the Respondents in rejecting the candidature of the Applicant on the ground that his OBC certificate is not in accordance with the provision laid down in para 16.8 of the said Employment, is totally arbitrary. He further submitted that with the Application Form he has already appended OBC Certificate Bearing No. 2049 dated 27.8.1994 issued by the Tahsildar/Chanduli, Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the action of the Respondents in rejecting the candidature of the Applicant on this ground that his OBC Certificate is not in accordance with the procedure laid down in Para 16.8 of the Employment Notice is totally contrary as he has already been certified as OBC by the competent Authority on 27.8.1994.
7. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents Shri P.N. Rai have raised preliminary objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. He pointed out that in the Employment Notice No.01/03 dated 13th Jun3 2003 (Annexure R/2), for which the applicant had sent the application, it is clearly indicated that in connection with any dispute arising out of this Employment Notice proper court for settling the disputes would be the Calcutta Bench of C.A.T. He further pointed out that the applicant appeared in Written Examination at Kolkata and he came for verification of documents also at Kolkata. The Office of the respondent is also located in Kolkata. Therefore, all the action which made him aggrieved had happened in Kolkata. So he had to file the O.A. not in this Tribunal at Allahabad, but in the Calcutta Bench of C.A.T. He has also cited various judicial pronouncements on the subject and submitted that in view of the above, this Tribunal is not having territorial jurisdiction in the matter
8. We have considered the rival submissions. Before discussing the merit of the case, the Preliminary Objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal raised by the Respondents has to be decided first. Rule 6 of the C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987 deals with jurisdiction of Tribunal which is reproduced hereinbelow:
6.Place of Filing Application: (1) An Application shall ordinarily be filed by an Applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction
(i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or
(ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen:
Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the Application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under Sec.25, such Application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter. On a plain reading of sub Rule (2) of the Rule 6, it appears that retired, dismissed or terminated employees can file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing. Since the Applicants case is not coming within sub-Rule (ii), therefore, in terms of this, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.
9. Further it can be seen from another angle that in terms of clear indication in para 26 of Employment Notice 1/03 also, only Calcutta Bench of C.A.T. at Kolkata is having jurisdiction. Clause 26 is reproduced hereinbelow:.
For any legal dispute the jurisdiction will be Central Administrative Tribunal, covering the city where a particular RRB is located. From the perusal of the above it is clear that only C.A.T. where a particular R.R.B. is located is having jurisdiction because these Examinations and recruitment processes are held on all India basis. Candidates from different corners of the country appear in these Examination and it is not possible for the RRB to defend so many cases in the different Benches of the C.A.T. located in different corners of the country. It is for this purpose that it was specifically mentioned in the Employment Notice.
10. We are also guided by the decision rendered by Principal Bench of the C.A.T. New Delhi in O.A. 251/97 decided on 31.1.1997 and also in view of the decision dated 9.4.1998 in CWJC No.2132 of 1998 by the Patna High Court. Not only this, subsequently also the decision of the C.A.T. Patna Bench in O.A. 731/1998 the relevant part of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
9. To crown, admittedly, there is a clear condition laid down in the Employment Notice No. 1/97 itself that for any legal action arising out of this Employment Notice, the jurisdiction shall be of C.A.T. /Calcutta only. The Applicants have sought for a direction to the respondents to complete the process of selection by RRB, Calcutta, by declaring the results of the selection process under the aforesaid Employment Notice. The aforesaid condition does not appear onerous. The posts advertised were open to all Indian Citizens, hailing from any part of the country. If the contention of the learned counsel for the Applicants is accepted, it would mean that any candidate from any part of the country would be able to file cases in respect of the aforesaid selection process against the RRB. Calcutta, in any Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. It may be pointed out that in the above stated decision it has been categorically held that Sub Rule 6 (ii) of the C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules is not attracted in the cases of recruitment.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the firm view that Rule 6 (ii) of the C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules 1987 coupled with the stipulation made in the Employment Notice No. 1/03, this Bench of the C.A.T. is not having jurisdiction to entertain the instant Application on merits. Therefore, the same is dismissed for want of jurisdiction as not maintainable. The Applicant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, for redressal of his grievance, if he is so advised. The Registry is directed to return the Paper Book to the Learned Counsel for the Applicant for presenting the same before the appropriate forum by retaining one copy. No order as to costs.
JM AM
Sj*
??
??
??
??
1