ALOK CHANDRA JHA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking appointment to the respondent. The petitioner seeks appointment as a Probationary Officer in Scale-I with the respondent.

(2.) COUNSEL appearing for the respondent has argued that this Court would have no jurisdiction because the only advertisement issued for recruitment was in Mumbai (Annexure P-1 to the writ petition) and which specifically states that the sole jurisdiction of the Courts with respect to disputes arising out of the advertisement will be of the Courts at Mumbai. Reliance is placed upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Swastik Gases P. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5086/2013 decided on 3.7.2013 which holds that in fact for exclusion of jurisdiction expressions 'alone', 'only' etc need not be used. This judgment in the case of M/s. Swastik Gases (supra) refers to all other earlier judgments on the point including the celebrated judgment in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163. The law consistently laid down by the Supreme Court is that once the ouster clause specifically uses the words 'alone', 'exclusive', 'only' etc etc, any other Court except the one which is agreed to would not have the jurisdiction.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner sought to place reliance upon para 22 of the judgment in the case of Interglobe Aviation Limited Vs. N. Satchidanand (2011) 7 SCC 463, however, the observations of the Supreme Court in this para are that parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction of a Court which otherwise does not have any and therefore this judgment is not on the proposition that when two Courts have jurisdiction parties can agree to any one Court having exclusive jurisdiction to decide the disputes between them.