1. This writ petition has been filed seeking direction upon the respondent Allahabad Bank to appoint petitioner no. 2 Rajesh Kumar on compassionate ground on the death of his father late Karambir Prasad while in employment of the Bank as Armed Security Guard at Katrasgarh Branch of the Bank.

2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents as to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It has been submitted that Katrasgarh Branch in the district of Dhanbad lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court and as no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition is not maintainable. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that they are residents of village Hasanpur Surat in the district of Samastipur within the jurisdiction of this Court, they entered into correspondence with the Bank for compassionate appointment from there and the decision not to appoint petitioner no. 2 was also communicated there and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and issue appropriate directions. Reliance is placed on a Bench decision in the case of Union of India V/s. Sarojni Mishra, 2002 (1) PLJR 733. In reply on behalf of the respondents reliance is placed on Union of India V/s. Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, 1997 (1) PLJR 769 and Sushil Kumar Pandey V/s. Union of India, 2001 (4) PLJR 678.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows. Late Karambir Prasad was Havildar in the Indian Army from where he took retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme on 1.3.83. He thereafter joined the Allahabad Bank as Armed Security Guard where he died while in employment on 29.9.98. He was 56 years old at the time of his death. After his death, petitioner no. 1, his widow, filed application for appointment of her son petitioner no. 2 on compassionate ground on 24.10.98. On 21.7.98, she filed another application. All India Allahabad employees Steering Committee vide letter dated 28.8.2000 recommended the petitioners claim for appointment. Petitioner no. 1 again made representation to the General Manager of the Bank at Kolkata on 7.3.2001. On 9.5.2002 she was informed that the competent authority had rejected the claim because the income declared by the petitioners was sufficient to maintain the family. Copy of the said letter dated 9.5.2002 has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

4. In view of the contentions raised at the bar on the point of jurisdiction, and the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to make any comments on the merit of the petitioners claim.

5. Article 226 of the Constitution initially provided that every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises writ jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government within . those territories, directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part-Ill and for any other purpose. In Election Commission V/s. Venkata Rao, AIR 1953 SC 210 the Supreme Court while interpreting Article 226 as it then stood, observed that "the rule that cause of action attracts jurisdiction in suits is based on statutory enactment and cannot apply to writs issuable under Article 226 which makes no reference to any cause of action where it arises but insists on the presence of the person or authority within the territories in relation to which High Court exercises jurisdiction". The Court thus held that in the absence of a specific provision in Article 226 on the lines of Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction on the plea that whole or part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction. The decision was followed in subsequent cases. By the 15th amendment,