1 128 wp 7720.26.odt..odt jIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.7720 OF 2026 Rakesh Manoj Pratihast .Vs. Union of India, thr. Its Secre., Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and ors. __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner. Mr. Kartik N. Shukul, DSGI for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 28.09.2026. The petitioner challenges the report of Review Medical Board, CRPF, Nagpur, whereby the petitioner has been declared medically unfit for the post of Sub-Inspector under SSC Combined Hindi Translators Examination, 2025. 2. Learned DSGI for the respondents has pointed out from the copy of the notification as to the Court jurisdiction of the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pension which reads as under:- “Clause 21. Court’s Jurisdiction:- Any dispute in regard to this recruitment will be subject to courts/tribunals having jurisdiction over the place of concerned Regional/Sub- Regional Office of the Commission where the candidate has appeared for the Computer Based Examination.” 2026:BHC-NAG:12854-DB 2 128 wp 7720.26.odt..odt 3. He has also pointed out the clause 10 entry in the chart which shows that – Regional Director (W.R.), Staff Selection Commission, 1st Floor, South Wing, Pratishtha Bhawan, 101, Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400020. Thus, he submitted that in view of both the clauses the jurisdiction would lie either with the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai or the Principal Seat at Mumbai. In addition to that, he also placed reliance on the decision of Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.4528/2016 decided on 14/06/2016 in paragraph Nos. 4.01 and 4.04 wherein the Gujarat High Court has considered the question in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Versus A.P. Agencies, Salem reported in (1989) 2 SCC, 163 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the question with respect to ouster of jurisdiction in a case where more than one Court having jurisdiction and the contract to vest jurisdiction in one of them and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that such a contract and ouster of jurisdiction is not against public policy. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there may be two or more competent Courts, which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of cause of action having arisen there within, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such court to try dispute which might arisen between themselves the agreement would be valid. 4. It is further observed by Gujarat High Court in paragraph No.4.01 that as per the employment notice, more 3 128 wp 7720.26.odt..odt particularly clause 11 of it, for any legal dispute the jurisdiction will be at Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai and High Court, Mumbai only. Therefore, once the petitioner herein applied for the post in question pursuant to the said employment notice and accepted all the terms and conditions mentioned in the employment notice including clause 11, thereafter it will not be open for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner still can approach any other forum other than the forum mentioned in clause 11 of the employment notice. As such the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the said employment notice pursuant to which he applied for the post in question. 5. Here, it is admitted position that the petitioner never challenged term and condition of the said notification, more particularly clause No.21 and Clause No.10 and therefore, the jurisdiction would lie at the Principal Seat at Mumbai. 6. In view of that, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to file before the Principal Seat at Mumbai. 7. In view of that, petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file before the Principal Seat at Mumbai. 8. The fees of the appointed counsel be quantified as per Rules. [RAJ D. WAKODE, J] [URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.] manisha Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/09/2026 14:39:06