Santosh vs Union Of India And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 7560 Del

Delhi High Court

Santosh vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 November, 2024

Author: Navin Chawla

Bench: Navin Chawla

                  $~235
                  *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                          Date of decision: 25.11.2024

                  +       W.P.(C) 16280/2024
                          SANTOSH
                                                                           .....Petitioner
                                             Through:      Mr.Rajesh Kumar Chauhan,
                                                           Adv.

                                             versus

                          UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
                                                                          .....Respondents
                                             Through:      Mr.Nirvikar Verma, SPC With
                                                           Mr.Ajay Pal, Law Officer
                                                           CRPF, Mr.Shiv Kumar Singh,
                                                           CRPF &Mr.Prahlad Devendra,
                                                           CISF.


                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

                  NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 68579/2024 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 16280/2024 & CM APPL. 68578/2024

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the Detailed Medical Report dated 09.10.2024 and the Review Medical Report dated 11.10.2024, declaring the petitioner unfit for appointment in the Physical Standard Test (in short, 'PST') (Tattoo on

R+ forearm) in the selection process for the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Secretariat Security Force (SSF), and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination- 2024 under OBC 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 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 havingterritorial 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 NOVEMBER 25, 2024/rv/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any