Tribunal lacks territorial jurisdiction unless applicant is a former employee or cause of action arises within its limits.

The applicant, Kanchan Swami, a resident of Lunkaransar, Bikaner, Rajasthan, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the Jodhpur Bench, participated in a recruitment drive for the year 2023-24 under the sports quota advertised by the Northeast Frontier Railway (NFR), Maligaon, Guwahati (Assam).

After not being selected, she filed a complaint on March 20, 2024, to the General Manager, NFR.

Subsequently, she filed an Original Application (OA) before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) with a Petition to Transfer (PT) No. 122/2024, seeking to have the case heard by the Principal Bench.

The applicant later sought and was granted leave to withdraw the PT to file the OA before the Jodhpur Bench, which was dismissed as withdrawn on May 17, 2024.

The applicant then filed the instant OA with the Jodhpur Bench against her non-selection, arraying the selected candidate (Respondent No. 5) who resides in Tamil Nadu.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Jodhpur Bench.

Whether the Jodhpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant Original Application.

Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which governs the place of filing applications.

Rule 6(1) states that an application shall ordinarily be filed where the applicant is posted for the time being, or where the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen.

Rule 6(2) provides an exception, allowing persons who have ceased to be in service due to retirement, dismissal, or termination to file an application where they ordinarily reside.

Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which confers power on the Chairman, CAT, to transfer cases between benches.

The court analyzed the territorial jurisdiction based on Rule 6 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

It found that the applicant's cause of action — non-selection for a post advertised by the NFR in Guwahati, Assam — did not arise, either wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jodhpur Bench.

The court clarified that while the applicant resides within the Jodhpur Bench's jurisdiction, this factor is relevant only for employees who have ceased to be in service (e.g., due to retirement, dismissal, or termination), as stipulated under Rule 6(2); the applicant, in this case, is not in such a category.

The court further reasoned that the mere withdrawal of the earlier Petition to Transfer with liberty to file before the Jodhpur Bench did not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Jodhpur Bench, as the Chairman had not exercised his power under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to transfer the case to Jodhpur.

Thus, the Jodhpur Bench inherently lacked jurisdiction to entertain the present OA.

Consequently, the instant Original Application is ordered to be returned to the applicant to enable her to file it before the appropriate Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction.

The OA stands disposed of accordingly.