Delhi High Court
Sourav Adhikary And Ors vs Staff Selection Commission And Ors on 22 October, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~50,52,55 & 58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22.10.2024
(50)+ W.P.(C) 14763/2024
(52)+ W.P.(C) 14770/2024
(55)+ W.P.(C) 14811/2024
(58)+ W.P.(C) 14829/2024
ROHIT KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners
BIPUL PAUL AND ORS .....Petitioners
SOURAV ADHIKARY AND ORS .....Petitioners
AJAY KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ajay Garg, Ms.Tripti
Gola,Mr.Uday Garg, Ms.Surbhi
Soni, Mr.Ganesh Ojha, Advs.
versus
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Anshuman Singh, SPC,
Mr.Vidur Dwivedi, GP with
Mr.Ajay Pal, Mr.Shiv Kr.
Singh, SI-CRPF (in item
no.50).
Mr.Ajay Kr. Panday, SPC (in
item no.52).
Ms.Iram Majid, CGSC,
Mr.Mohd. Suboor, Adv. with
Mr.Shiv Kumar, SI-CRPF (in
item no.55).
Mr.Rishabh Sahu, SPC,
Ms.Rashi Mangal, GP,
Mr.Sameer Sharma, Adv. (in
item no.58).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 62041/2024 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 14763/2024
CM APPL. 62072/2024 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 14770/2024
CM APPL. 62255/2024 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 14811/2024
CM APPL. 62301/2024 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 14829/2024
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 14763/2024 & CM APPL. 62042/2024
W.P.(C) 14770/2024 & CM APPL. 62073/2024
W.P.(C) 14811/2024 & CM APPL. 62256/2024
W.P.(C) 14829/2024 & CM APPL. 62302/2024
2. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners, challenging
the rejection slips issued by the respondents, declaring the petitioners
unfit for appointment in the Physical Standard Test (in short, 'PST')
(height/chest) 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 - 2024.
3. The petitioners have 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."
4. Admittedly, none of the petitioners have appeared for the
Computer Based Examination in Delhi. Their 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 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."
6. Being bound by the above Judgment, we dispose of the present
petitions, reserving the liberty of the petitioners to approach the Court
of competent jurisdiction.
7. All pending applications are also disposed of.
8. Dasti
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
OCTOBER 22, 2024/Arya/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
