Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manish Sarkar vs Union Of India & Others on 18 December, 2017
1
167 18.12.2017. W.P. 28765 (W) of 2017
BD
Manish Sarkar
Vs
Union of India & Others
Mr. Chandra Sekhar Bag.
... For Petitioner
Ms. Indrani Chakraborty,
Ms. S. Sha.
... For Union of India
Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be
kept with the record.
The petitioner is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of
the Border Security Force. He was promoted to the
said post in the year 2011. Subsequently, at a much
later date he started making applications to two
different authorities for grant of retrospective
seniority in the said rank.
It appears from the correspondence annexed to
the writ petition that the petitioner at the relevant
point of time was posted at Chhatisgarh and the
different authorities to whom such requests were
made were all posted outside the West Bengal. It
further appears that the respondents who considered
the representations of the petitioner including the authority who passed the order impugned are all located outside this State.
Thus, this Court plainly does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. Why the petitioner had incorporated the Inspector 2 General, South Bengal (BSF) as a respondent is not very clear from a reading of the writ petition. The only reason that could be mentioned by Mr. Bag, the learned advocate for the petitioner, is that at one point of time he was posted in South Bengal which was a matter of the past long ago. The records are all located outside West Bengal and the cause of action entirely has arisen outside the territorial limits of this Court. The petitioner made his request for retrospective seniority from his posting at Chattisgarh to the authority located outside this State.
Merely because the petitioner joined his service in West Bengal or he had his medical check up in a hospital located in the State does not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the writ petition.
Even if the order impugned was sent to the Inspector General (BSF), South Bengal, this Court does not have the jurisdiction. It has to be borne in mind that this was not a communication to the petitioner so that the place where the communication is made can be said to have acquired jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The communication was made to the petitioner when he was posted in Chattisgarh. The order impugned was sent to him only because the Inspector General had written a letter on July 18, 2017 to the appropriate authority regarding the grievance of the petitioner pursuant to the letter written by the petitioner on May 1, 2017.
The writ petition is thus dismissed as not 3 entertainable in this Court. Liberty to take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum. There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.)