Participation in centralized recruitment binds candidates to its clear exclusive-jurisdiction clause.

The applicant applied for a PGT post under Employment Notice No. 01/2025, took the Preliminary and Tier-II examinations, and was called for interview.

On 28 September 2026, her candidature was rejected on the ground that her OBC (NCL) certificate did not meet the notice’s date requirement. She challenged that rejection before the CAT Allahabad Bench, contending that her certificate, issued on 11 May 2025, fell within the prescribed period.

The respondents objected to territorial jurisdiction, relying on paragraph 24(q) of the notice, which provided that disputes concerning the recruitment would be subject to the jurisdiction of courts in Delhi only.

The Tribunal disposed of the application at the admission stage with the parties’ consent.

1. Whether the CAT Allahabad Bench could entertain the application despite the recruitment notice’s stipulation that disputes were subject to the jurisdiction of courts in Delhi only.

2. Whether the applicant’s participation in the recruitment process bound her to the notice’s jurisdiction clause.

Relying on A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163, the Tribunal applied the principle that where more than one court is competent to hear a dispute, parties may agree to confer jurisdiction on one of those courts, and a clear and unambiguous exclusive-jurisdiction clause should ordinarily be given effect.

It also relied on Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd., (2009) 3 SCC 107, as affirming that proposition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim arose from the centralized recruitment conducted under the employment notice and therefore had a direct connection with that notice.

It held that the wording “Delhi Only” in paragraph 24(q) was clear and unambiguous, and that the applicant had participated in the selection process with knowledge of the clause.

In the Tribunal’s view, the clause served the legitimate purpose of avoiding multiple proceedings concerning a centralized recruitment. It therefore declined to entertain the application at Allahabad.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the applicant’s OBC (NCL) certificate satisfied the substantive eligibility requirement.

All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.