APRATIM MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to an advertisement published by the State Bank of India, Central Recruitment and Promotion Department, Corporate Centre, Mumbai for recruitment of probationary officers in the bank the petitioner made an online application in the general category. He was selected for online preliminary examination to be held on 1st July, 2018. Being successful in the said examination the petitioner was shortlisted for appearing in the online main examination to be held on 4th August, 2018. The petitioner was thereafter informed that based upon his performance in the online main examination he was found suitable for appearing in the interview and group exercise. The petitioner was directed to appear on the scheduled date and venue as indicated in the interview intimation. The petitioner duly appeared in the said interview. By a letter dated 30th October, 2018 the petitioner was informed by the Local Head Office of 2 the State Bank of India, New Delhi that he was provisionally selected for appointment as Probationary Officer in the State Bank of India and allotted "New Delhi circle". It was mentioned in the said letter that his appointment was subject to satisfactory completion of the appointment formalities including medical examination, which will be conveyed to him separately. By a communication dated 16th November, 2018 the petitioner was directed to report to the Local Head Office, New Delhi on 10th December, 2018 for medical examination. The petitioner duly reported for medical examination on the scheduled date and time.

(2.) During medical examination the petitioner was informed that in normal course candidates having negative power in the eye at the maximum of minus eight (-8) are considered fit for appointment but as the petitioner has minus nine (-9) power in the left eye and minus seven (-7) power in the right eye along with cylindrical power he was advised to undergo lasik surgery in order to get appointment in the bank. The petitioner was advised to continue eye treatment and report back after a month for reexamination. The petitioner submits that he consulted an ophthalmologist who advised him not to undergo the lasik surgery as there was some problem in his retina. Although the petitioner was advised not to 2 3 undergo surgery but the doctor continued with his eye treatment. As per the instruction of the respondent authority the petitioner reported to the bank after one month for reexamination of his eye. On 1st January, 2019 the petitioner sent a letter to the bank via e- mail indicating that he had undergone treatment in Kolkata and reported to the Local Head Office of the bank, New Delhi for reexamination of his eye. On 2nd January, 2019 the petitioner was informed by the bank via e-mail that he was declared temporarily unfit by the bank's Medical Officer and advised to contact the said Medical Officer.

(3.) The petitioner submits that he contacted the Medical Officer of the bank who informed the petitioner that he will not be able to help him in any manner. The petitioner submits that in the advertisement there was a provision for reservation of vacancies for persons with disabilities. There was reservation for candidates with visual impairment and candidates who suffer from blindness or low vision. The petitioner is better off than candidates who were blind or had low vision. He submits that after treatment the power of his eye has reduced considerably and he does not have any difficulty in performing his duties after correction of his vision by 3 4 wearing spectacles. The petitioner being eligible in the selection process ought to be issued letter of appointment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent bank submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the High Court at Calcutta does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. He submits that the recruitment advertisement was published by the bank from their corporate office at Mumbai. The petitioner was selected for being appointed in the New Delhi circle of the bank. The medical examination of the petitioner was held at New Delhi. The petitioner was directed to report for reexamination of his eye at New Delhi. The general information given under Clause 16 of the recruitment advertisement clearly mentions that any legal proceeding in respect of any manner of claim or dispute arising out of the advertisement and/or an obligation in response thereto can be instituted only in Mumbai and the Courts/tribunals/forums at Mumbai only shall have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to try any cause/dispute. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement and accordingly he is bound by the said clause according to which the Courts/tribunals/forums in Mumbai 4 5 have exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue. He submits that no part of the cause of action arose at Kolkata and none of the respondents have their office located at Kolkata. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to decide the issue.