Receipt of adverse recruitment communications and consequential effects within a territory can confer CAT jurisdiction.

The applicant applied for the post of SUPT (JOT) Operator with NALCO and, after qualifying the CBT, underwent a pre-employment medical examination at Angul, Odisha.

NALCO found him medically unfit on account of diabetes; a re-examination upheld that finding, which was communicated to him on 29 January 2026.

The applicant sought examination by an Independent Medical Appellate Board under Clause 7(viii) of the NALCO Medical Examination Rules, 2006, but his representations remained undecided.

He resided in West Bengal and relied, among other things, on medical examinations conducted there; NALCO objected that the Kolkata Bench lacked territorial jurisdiction because the recruitment and NALCO examinations took place in Odisha.

At the hearing, the applicant stated that he would be satisfied with a direction to decide his pending representation.

1. Whether the Kolkata Bench had territorial jurisdiction where the selection and NALCO medical examinations occurred in Odisha, but the applicant resided in West Bengal and received NALCO communications there.

2. Whether NALCO should be directed to decide the applicant’s request for examination by an Independent Medical Appellate Board under Clause 7(viii) of the 2006 Rules.

Rule 6(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 permits filing before the Bench within whose jurisdiction the applicant is posted or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose.

The Tribunal referred to State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, which it understood to establish that service of a notice or communication at a location does not, by itself, create territorial jurisdiction absent a direct nexus to the challenged action; and to Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff, which it applied to the question whether a material part of the cause of action arose within the relevant jurisdiction.

Clause 7(viii) of the NALCO Medical Examination Rules, 2006 provides for an Independent Medical Appellate Board in disputes concerning medical fitness.

Although the recruitment process and NALCO medical examinations took place in Odisha, the Tribunal noted that the applicant resided in West Bengal, underwent medical examinations there, and received NALCO communications at his West Bengal address.

It held that, in these circumstances, at least part of the cause of action arose within the Kolkata Bench’s jurisdiction and rejected NALCO’s preliminary objection.

Without deciding whether the applicant was medically fit, the Tribunal considered it appropriate for the competent authority to decide his pending request under the applicable Rules.

The Tribunal disposed of the application by directing Respondent No. 2 or another competent authority to decide the applicant’s representations dated 11 February 2026 and 23 June 2026 concerning referral to an Independent Medical Appellate Board under Clause 7(viii).

The authority was to communicate its decision by a reasoned, speaking order within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal expressed no view on the merits of the applicant’s medical condition and made no order as to costs.