Delhi High Court
Vinay Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors. on 23 December, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~212
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 23.12.2024
+ W.P.(C) 17744/2024
VINAY GAUTAM .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abhay Kaushik, Ms.Himani
Babbar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Nirvikar Verma, SPC with
Mr.Aakash Meena, with
Mr.Ajay Pal, Law Officer,
CRPF and Mr.Ramniwas
Yadav, CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 75500/2024(exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 17744/2024
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the
Detailed Medical Report dated 21.11.2024 and the Review
Medical Report dated 22.11.2024, declaring the petitioner unfit
for appointment in the Physical Standard Test (in short, ‘PST’)
(due to CPIV and Overweight) in the selection process for the
post of Constable Driver in the Recruitment Procedure for CT
(Technical/ Tradesmen, Pioneer & Ministerial) -2023.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17744/2024 Page 1 of 3
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:26.12.2024
12:48:03
3. The petitioner has applied for the said post pursuant to the Notice
dated 15.03.2023 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 to
courts having jurisdiction over the place of
concerned of the Examination Centres where
the candidate has appeared for the CBT.”
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 parties and perused
the record, we are of the considered view that
once the advertisement pursuant to which the
petitioner had applied contained as pecific
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.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17744/2024 Page 2 of 3
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:26.12.2024
12:48:03
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.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
DECEMBER 23, 2024
RN/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17744/2024 Page 3 of 3
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:26.12.2024
12:48:03