ORDER 1. This writ has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the final result of candidates selected for West Bengal Zone, for appointment to the post of clerk declared on 16.10.11 on the ground of its having been finalized in the teeth of the rule decided by Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 15.02.08 passed in K. Manju Shri versus State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512 . (ii) For holding that the prescription of minimum qualifying marks for interview has to be done in advance at the start of the recruitment process itself and not after interview is over as has been decided by Hon’ble Apex Court and also Hon’ble Patna High Court in a catena of judgments and in view thereof the final results deserve to be set aside. (iii) For holding that candidates who apply and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement and that his right crystallizes on the date of publication of the advertisement. (iv) For a direction upon the respondents to appoint him to the post of clerk giving him consequential benefits with retrospective effect. (v) For any other reliefs for which the petitioner may be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interim the petitioner prays for the following relief during the pendency of this writ: (vi) For stay on appointment of candidates against the vacant posts of Clerk and to set aside one post vacant for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that an advertisement was uploaded on the website of the Allahabad Bank ((hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for the sake of brevity) inviting applications online from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of clerk through a common written examination to be conducted on 08.05.2011 in 25 States and Union Territories against 1100 sanctioned and vacant posts and the petitioner being eligible on all counts applied for West Bengal where vacancies for SC category were maximum and since the petitioner belonged to that category, he was under the belief that he would have greater probability of selection from that zone as he was fluent in Bengali also. It was also submitted that petitioner got 170 marks out of a total of 200 marks in the written examination, whereas cut off marks for written examination was only 35% for SC category and hence he was called for interview. However, in the interview, the petitioner was given only 7 marks out of 30 marks, although the qualifying mark fixed was 10. Hence on that ground, the petitioner’s candidature was not considered for appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said rejection on the ground that Scheduled Caste candidates getting only 151 marks in total had been selected. He further stated that although minimum qualifying marks for the written test were mentioned in the advertisement, but no minimum qualifying marks were fixed for interview in the said advertisement and hence fixing of minimum qualifying marks for interview after initiation of selection process was not legal and permissible. 4. In this connection, he relied upon three decisions of the Apex Court in case of N.T. Bevin Katti etc. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1233 ; in case of K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 ; and in case of Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the same view had been taken by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.08.2011 (Annexure-7) passed in CWJC No.3866 of 2011 (Rohan Rai Vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of this writ petition in the Patna High Court stating that the petitioner had applied for West Bengal category and advertisement, examination, interview and result were all held/issued at Kolkata and the letters sent to the petitioner were also from Kolkata. He also averred that in the advertisement itself it had been prescribed that the jurisdiction of any dispute with respect to the above appointment would be of the courts situated in Kolkata. Hence he claimed that this writ petition is not maintainable in this High Court at Patna. 6. He also averred that in the advertisement itself it had been prescribed that the jurisdiction of any dispute with respect to the above appointment would be of the courts situated in Kolkata. Hence he claimed that this writ petition is not maintainable in this High Court at Patna. 6. To the said preliminary objection, learned counsel for the petitioner replied that parts of action were in Bihar as the petitioner had applied from Bihar, the authorities had sent his admit card to his address in Bihar and similarly interview letter was also sent here, whereafter the petitioner submitted his caste certificate from Bihar which was accepted by respondent-authorities at Kolkata and the letter sent by the authorities of the Bank were also received in Bihar. Hence he argued that jurisdiction of Patna High Court cannot be taken away as technical grounds cannot legally stop the principle of equity. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court in case of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor & General Traders, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1409 as well as in case of Roop Lal Sathi V. Nachhattar Singh reported in AIR 1982 SC 1559 . 7. In the said circumstances without going into the merits of this case, the issue of jurisdiction is being taken up, because only if the jurisdiction of Patna High Court is upheld, the issue of merit could be taken up. 8. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it transpires that main issue is with respect to the provisions prescribed in the advertisement (Annexure-1). Clause 7 of the advertisement prescribed Statewise written test centres for all the 25 States and Union Territories and the number of vacancies in each of the aforesaid States/Union Territories, for which recruitments were going to be made in which Bihar and West Bengal both find place. Furthermore, Clause 11(5) of the said advertisement provided that any dispute arising out of the said advertisement shall be subject to the sole jurisdiction of the Courts situated at Kolkata. 9. It is apparent from the record that for West Bengal, there was highest number of vacancies, i.e. 249, whereas for Bihar the vacancies were only 50. Furthermore, Clause 11(5) of the said advertisement provided that any dispute arising out of the said advertisement shall be subject to the sole jurisdiction of the Courts situated at Kolkata. 9. It is apparent from the record that for West Bengal, there was highest number of vacancies, i.e. 249, whereas for Bihar the vacancies were only 50. The petitioner had himself admitted in paragraph 4 of his writ petition that he applied for West Bengal State only, because vacancies for Scheduled Caste Category was maximum there and he would have greater probability of selection from that zone as he was also fluent in Bengali. Hence the petitioner having himself opted for the State of West Bengal and all his examination, interview and selection having held in West Bengal, the Court of proper jurisdiction for deciding this dispute will definitely be the appropriate Court at Kolkata. 10. Furthermore, the advertisement very clearly provided that any dispute arisen out of the said advertisement shall be subject to the sole jurisdiction of the Courts situated at Kolkata. Thus, this dispute which has also arisen out of the said advertisement, the jurisdiction lies with Courts situated at Kolkata (West Bengal) where advertisement and results were published as well as examination and interview were held. The mere fact that the petitioner received at Patna the letters sent by the authorities from Kolkata cannot legally create jurisdiction for this Court, more so, in view of the terms of the advertisement mentioned above. 11. The case laws with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu (supra) and in case of Roop Lal Sathi (supra) are not applicable to the specific and clear facts of this case mentioned above. No doubt, technical grounds cannot stop the Courts from granting equitable reliefs, but in the instant case, it is not a question of mere technicality, rather the question involved in the instant case is the question of jurisdiction of this Court which cut at the root of the claim of the petitioner raised before this Court. 12. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed only on the ground of jurisdiction. 12. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed only on the ground of jurisdiction. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to seek reliefs claimed in this writ petition before any appropriate Court having jurisdiction to consider such matters as this Court has not considered the merit of the petitioner’s claim challenging the impugned action of the authorities concerned.