ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the Respondents in denying the appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Deputy General Manager (E-7 Level) in the functions of Company Secretary on medical grounds vide e-mail communication dated 08.08.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. An Advertisement No.07 of 2023 dated 03.05.2023 was issued by the Respondents inviting applications for appointment to the post of Deputy General Manager (E-7 Level) in Respondent-Corporation. The qualification for the said post is that the individual should be a member of ICSI (Institute of Company Secretaries of India). The Petitioner had applied for the said post and was informed to have been shortlisted for selection vide e-mail on 07.09.2023 and the Petitioner was called upon to attend interview on 12.09.2023. 3. Consequent thereto, in the interview, the Respondents had declared that the Petitioner was selected for the said post on merit vide e-mail dated 20.05.2024. As a pre-requisite for appointments, the Petitioner was called upon to undergo pre-employment medical examination at any one of the hospitals run by Respondent No.2- Corporation. The Petitioner being a resident of Visakhapatnam is said to have underwent medical tests and examination at Hospital of NTPC, Simhadri, Visakhapatnam. After medical examination, no further communication was issued to the Petitioner. On enquiry, the Petitioner came to know that he was declared medically unfit due to Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy (HOCM) based on the report of Respondent No.4. 4. The Petitioner, thereafter submitted several communications requesting the Respondents to review the view taken regarding his medical condition stating that HOCM would not cause any hindrance to perform the job of Deputy General Manager even as per the NTPC Medical Norms & Standards for Fitness. 5. Pursuant to the repeated requests of the Petitioner, an e-mail was communicated on 11.07.2024 by the Respondents, where under the Petitioner was called upon to obtain opinion of the Cardiologist on two aspects i.e., (a) Exercise Stress Testing to determine functional capacity and to quantify the degree of functional limitation, if present (b) SCD (Sudden Cardiac Death) risk assessment on a condition that the above tests/investigations would be undertaken in the Cardiology Department of a Government Medical College/AIIMS/PGI under the supervision of a Cardiologist. 6. 6. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted himself to the NIMS Hospital at Hyderabad and underwent all the above advised tests/investigations undertaken by the Cardiology Department of the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. 7. After completion of tests/investigations, the Cardiology Department of the NIMS Hospital submitted an opinion that the medical condition of the Petitioner i.e., HOCM would not in any way cause hindrance to the discharge of duties by the Petitioner. On 08.08.2024, the Petitioner was informed that the Respondents have reconsidered the medical opinions and were of the opinion that the Petitioner is medically unfit in terms of Clauses 14 and 18.4 of the NTPC Medical Norms & Standards for Fitness. In that context, the present Writ Petition is filed. 8. In the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondents primarily the fact that the Petitioner was provisionally selected and an offer of appointment was issued on 20.05.2024 was accepted. The preliminary objection is that Clause 8 of the Notification provides that any dispute with regard to advertisement has to be instituted only in Delhi and Courts/Tribunals/Forums at Delhi only shall have sole and exclusive jurisdictions. 9. In the Counter-Affidavit, it is stated that there are certain health standards, which are necessary for recruitment in the Respondent- Corporation and the individuals should be of sound health. It is also stated that the candidates will have to undergo medical examination in NTPC Hospital and the decision of the NTPC Hospital will be final and no relaxation in health standards is allowed. It is stated that the health norms are very essential for the purpose of recruitment of any person into NTPC Limited. It is stated that Clauses 14 and 18 of the NTPC Medical Norms & Standards for Fitness deal with ECG and Blood Sugar respectively. 10. It is further stated in the Counter-Affidavit that as per the medical tests/investigations undergone by the Petitioner at NTPC Hospital, Simhadri, Visakhapatnam, the Petitioner was found unfit for the post of Deputy General Manager on account of HOCM medical condition. On repeated representations made by the Petitioner stating that he is medically fit and seeking for re-examination of his case, it was decided to constitute a medical committee with three senior physicians to review the medical status of the Petitioner and accordingly the committee sent a communication to the Petitioner asking to get medical tests before any Government Hospital or AIIMS etc., 11. Accordingly, the Petitioner had undergone medical tests at NIMS at Hyderabad from 15.07.2024 to 18.07.2024 and as per the medical report, it was confirmed that the medical status of the Petitioner was the same as that was earlier found by NTPC Hospital during the first medical examination and the Petitioner was found to be informed on account of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy with Scarring. 12. It is stated that the medical reports alone would be taken for determining the medical condition of the Petitioner and not the opinion associated with the medical reports of the Duty Doctor at NTPC Hospital, Simhadri, Visakhapatnam and NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. It is stated that in both the medical reports, the medical condition of the Petitioner is not in dispute but there is a variance in the medical opinion and the medical committee of the Respondent-Corporation did not agree with the medical opinion of the Doctors at both the hospitals referred above. 13. Contentions: The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is nothing to discard the opinion of the Doctors at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and the contention of the Respondents that medical reports alone would be taken for determining the medical condition of the Petitioner but not the opinion associated with the medical reports of the Doctors is unsustainable and arbitrary. It is stated that the nature of the job for which the Petitioner has aspired is basically a Company Secretary job and the same does not require any physical stress and does not involve any physical stress and the Petitioner can be appointed in the said post. 14. Learned Counsel for the Respondents who reiterated the contentions in the Counter-Affidavits would submit that the medical committee of the Respondent-Corporation is better informed regarding the conditions of service and the stress involved in the post and their opinion would be binding rather than the opinion of the Doctors at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. The learned counsel for the Respondents also argued with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this Writ Petition by referring to Clause 8 of the Notification. 15. Heard the respective counsels. 16. The preliminary objection was with regard to Clause 8 of the Notification conferring jurisdiction to Courts at Delhi alone and the exclusion of jurisdiction of other Courts to entertain the dispute. 15. Heard the respective counsels. 16. The preliminary objection was with regard to Clause 8 of the Notification conferring jurisdiction to Courts at Delhi alone and the exclusion of jurisdiction of other Courts to entertain the dispute. The origin of exclusive territorial jurisdictions has emanated in contractual law so that supplier of products is not harassed by institution of suits in interior State where he can neither understand the local language or has wherewithal to defend the case. Such a clause however has no application vis-a-vis Corporations like the NTPC in a case of this nature. 17. The NTPC Limited is a Central Government undertaking and having presence in nook and corner of the country and insistence on Clause 8 of the Notification in a case of this nature would make it impossible for an aspirant coming from a far end part of the country and would be oppressive. 18. It is to be noted that Courts are required to examine whether the exclusion of territorial jurisdictions of Courts is used as a tool to deny rightful challenge to arbitrary actions before placing any reliance on such clause. An aggrieved person should have access to remedy i.e. “ubi jus ibi remedy” and this should not be an illusionary remedy. Coming to the facts of this case, the Clause 8 would not come to the aid of NTPC and the Petitioner cannot be compelled to approach Delhi Courts to question the denial of employment. 19. Coming to the merits, the Petitioner has been selected for the post of Deputy General Manager (E-7 Level) and the issue is with regard to the medical condition of the Petitioner. The NTPC Limited has its own norms and standards for medical fitness. As per Clause 14 of the Notification, if resting ECG is abnormal then the individual shall be submitted for exercise tolerance test (TMT) and if TMT is positive the individual will be declared unfit. 20. In the medical test conducted at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, the Doctor had opined that the Petitioner can discharge his duties efficiently despite the HOCM medical condition. 20. In the medical test conducted at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, the Doctor had opined that the Petitioner can discharge his duties efficiently despite the HOCM medical condition. The relevant part of the opinion reads as under; “Based on the tests, investigations, the noticed HOCM is no way causing any hindrance/interference with the efficient performance and effective discharge of all such duties, responsibilities and functions for which the candidate is under consideration for employment having completely administrative & soft nature job and no involvement of any physical exertion.” 21. The medical opinion of the Department of Cardiology at NIMS, Hyderabad was not accepted and no reasons are forthcoming from the Respondents for not explaining the said opinion. More so, when there is no dispute to the fact that the nature of job for which the Petitioner is sought to be recruited is a soft nature of job of which does not require physical exertion. 22. As the issue is only with regard to the dispute among medical opinions, it would be appropriate, if a fresh medical opinion is taken by the Respondent-Corporation with a prior intimation to the concerned institution regarding the nature of job and duties of the Petitioner and his ability to discharge the said job. 23. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions; (i) The Respondent-Corporation shall intimate the Cardiology Department of AIIMS, Mangalagiri the nature of job of the Petitioner along with a copy of this order within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order; (ii) The Respondent-Corporation shall intimate the same to the Petitioner; (iii) The Petitioner shall then undergo fresh medical tests/investigations under the supervision of the Cardiology Department of AIIMS, Mangalagiri forthwith; (iv) On the basis of the opinion of the Cardiology Department of AIIMS, Mangalagiri, further decision will be taken by the Respondent-Corporation; (v) The Respondent-Corporation is at liberty to depute any person of responsibility to be present at the time of medical tests of Petitioner at AIIMS, Managalagiri; (vi) No order as to costs. 24. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.