Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bittu vs Union Of India And Others on 10 October, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 16900 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 16900 of 2012
Date of Decision : October 10, 2012
Bittu .... PETITIONER
Vs.
Union of India and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Senior Panel Counsel,
for Union of India.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable as he has been selected from the said post and has not been issued the appointment letter merely on the ground that his candidature has been cancelled for he having signed the application form in capital letters.
Upon notice issued to the respondents, reply has been filed, wherein objection has been raised with regard to the territorial CWP No. 16900 of 2012 2 jurisdiction of this Court for entertaining the present writ petition. It has further been stated that in the Notice of Examination published in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar under column No. 15 under heading COURTS JURISDICTION, it was mentioned that 'any dispute in regard to this recruitment will be subject to courts/tribunals having jurisdiction over the city/town in which the concerned Regional/Sub-Regional office of the Staff Selection Commission is situated where the candidate has submitted his/her application. Petitioner had submitted his application at Delhi and, therefore, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and others vs. Kalyan Banerjee, 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 685 to contend that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition preferred by the petitioner as he is resident of State of Haryana and has received the order of cancellation of his candidature at his village Atwal, Tehsil Matlauda, District Panipat.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the Division Bench judgment dated 12.08.2011, passed by this Court in LPA No. 128 of 2011 titled as M.M.Thapar vs. Union of India and others, wherein it has been held that in the light of the provisions of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, mere posting of an order or delivery of the same to the petitioner who lives within the CWP No. 16900 of 2012 3 jurisdiction of this Court would not give rise to a cause of action. Accordingly, it is held that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.
In the light of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner is relegated to the remedy before the Court, which has the territorial jurisdiction in respect of the impugned order.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that vide order dated 31.08.2012 passed by this Court, one post of Constable was kept reserved for the petitioner and he states that one week's time may be granted to the petitioner to approach the Court of competent territorial jurisdiction to redress his grievance, which, as stated by the respondents, is Delhi.
In the light of the above, a direction is issued to the respondents to keep one post of Constable, which has already been reserved by this Court, for the petitioner till expiry of one week from today i.e. up to 18.10.2012.
Copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties under signatures of the Special Secretary of this Court.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
October 10, 2012 JUDGE
pj