Order : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the tribunal’). 2. The brief facts are that on 14.08.2018 the petitioners- Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for short ‘KVS’) issued advertisement inviting applications for direct recruitment on various posts including the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (for short ‘TGT’). The respondent applied for the post of TGT-Social Studies. As per Clause-32 of the advertisement, she filled preference of choice for posting in six zones. First zone of preference was western and the second zone of preference being south. Vide appointment letter dated 20.08.2019, the respondent was appointed and instructed to report on duty on or before 10.09.2019 to the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kathihalli, Hassan. On failure of the respondent to join, the appointment was withdrawn on 21.10.2019. The respondent challenged withdrawal of appointment before the tribunal. The Original Application (for short ‘OA’) was disposed of by the tribunal on 11.02.2020 directing the non applicants to decide the representation by passing a speaking order. The representation was disposed of on 26.05.2020 and request of the respondent for giving appointment in west zone was rejected. The OA filed impugning the order of rejection of representation was allowed by the tribunal on 05.10.2021. Hence the present petition. 3. The respondent has chosen not to appear before this Court despite service and was proceeded ex-parte on 11.02.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia argued that the Jaipur Bench of tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the OA. The contention is that as per the advertisement all disputes arising from the recruitment were amenable before the Courts of Delhi. The submission is that the appointment letter was issued and withdrawn from Karnataka. 5. The tribunal while dealing with the issue of jurisdiction held that the recruitment process cannot be stretched to a point to include the disputes of posting after selection. The clause of jurisdiction in the advertisement shall not oust the jurisdiction of tribunal at Jaipur. Further the decision of posting is not taken by the recruiting agency but is of the administrative department. The findings recorded by the tribunal have a fallacy. The clause of jurisdiction in the advertisement shall not oust the jurisdiction of tribunal at Jaipur. Further the decision of posting is not taken by the recruiting agency but is of the administrative department. The findings recorded by the tribunal have a fallacy. It was provided in the advertisement that the candidate shall be liable to be posted anywhere in India and this preference of posting has mandatorily be opted but it shall not confer any right to the candidate. Another aspect is that there is no recruiting agency. The KVS was the employer as well as undertaking the recruitment. The tribunal erred in holding that the posting was not done by the recruiting agency when there existed none. 6. Further it would be apposite to mention that the order impugned before the tribunal rejecting the representation was passed at Delhi. 7. Clause 10 of the appointment letter dated 20.08.2019 states that the Courts of Delhi alone shall have jurisdiction of the disputes or the claims against KVS in respect of service or any contract arising out of or flowing of from the offer of appointment. It was in the nature of exclusion clause, the jurisdiction of Courts other than Delhi High Court was excluded. 8. Reliance is placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court passed in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 . Relevant part of the judgment is quoted below:- “From the foregoing decisions it can be reasonably deduced that where such an ouster clause occurs, it is pertinent to see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction of other Courts. When the clause is clear, umabiguous and specific accepted notions of contract would bind the parties and unless the absence of ad idem can be shown, the other Courts should avoid exercising jurisdiction. As regards construction of the ouster clause when words like ‘alone’, ‘only, ‘exclusive’ and the like have been used there may be no difficulty. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius’ expression of one is the exclusion of another may be applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. In such a case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of another. Even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius’ expression of one is the exclusion of another may be applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. In such a case mention of one thing may imply exclusion of another. When certain jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to exclude all others from its operation may in such cases be inferred. It has therefore to be properly construed.” 9. It would be relevant to quote Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987:- “ 6. Place of filing applications.— (1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction— (i) the applicant is posted for the time being, or (ii) the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen: Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under Section 25, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application.” 10. Rule 6 deals with place of filing applications:-as per clause (i) & (ii) in ordinary circumstances an application is to be filed at the place where the applicant is posted or at the place where the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen. Sub Rule 2 starts with a non-obstante clause and stipulates that in case of a retired, dismissed or terminated person, the OA can be filed with the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application. 11. It is an undisputed fact that the appointment letter was issued from Karnataka and was withdrawn from Karnataka. Apart from the respondent being a resident of Bharatpur, no case was set up before the tribunal that a cause or part of cause had arisen within the jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench of the tribunal. 11. It is an undisputed fact that the appointment letter was issued from Karnataka and was withdrawn from Karnataka. Apart from the respondent being a resident of Bharatpur, no case was set up before the tribunal that a cause or part of cause had arisen within the jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench of the tribunal. Further Sub- rule (2) of Rule 6 creates an exception of sub-rule (1) only in case of a retired dismissed or a terminated person none else. 12. The impugned order is quashed for Jaipur Bench of the tribunal not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the OA. The writ petition is allowed. 13. It is clarified that since the order has been quashed for want of jurisdiction, the contentions on merits need not be gone into.