JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents through video conference.

2. The present writ petition has been filed “for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing & commanding the respondents to consider the case for appointments of petitioners to the post of Assistant Grade III (Depot) (I) for the South Zone, Food Corporation of India, who have successfully qualified written test and due verification has already been done for the appointment for all zones in pursuance of Advertisement No. 3/2015”.

3. Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-FCI has raised a preliminary-objection with respect to non-maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that no part of cause of action can be said to have arisen within the State of Bihar for the purposes of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Reference has been invited to clauses 16 and 26 of the advertisement(Annexure-1), inter alia, setting up the zone wise examination centres and stipulating that the jurisdiction of each zone would be as enumerated for 597 vacancies (later increased to 780)advertised for Assistant Grade-III (Depot) entirely in the South Zone and none of the posts to be filled up pursuant to such vacancies related to the Bihar region. All actions were taken within the South Zone, such as conduct of the written examination on 02.08.2015, document verification and also the officers verifying the documents and the officers competent to appoint are all from the South Zone.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-FCI places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, (2007) 11 SCC 335. In thesaid case, the contentions of the parties have been taken note of in detail in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment, which are as follows

“8. The appellant Company contended that a part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellant Company, for such submission, relied on the following facts:

(i) the appellant Company has its registered and corporate office at Chandigarh;

(ii) the appellant Company carries on business at Chandigarh;

(iii) the offer of the appellant Company was accepted on 20-2-2004 and the acceptance was communicated to it at Chandigarh;

(iv) part-performance of the contract took place at Chandigarh inasmuch as Rs 4.50 crores had been deposited by the appellant Company in a fixed deposit at Chandigarh as per the request of the first respondent;

(v) the Chairman and Managing Director of the first respondent visited Chandigarh to ascertain the bona fides of the appellant Company;

(vi) negotiations were held between the parties in the third week of March, 2005 at Chandigarh;

(vii) letter of revocation dated 23-2-2006 was received by the appellant Company at Chandigarh. Consequences of the revocation ensued at Chandigarh by which the appellant Company is aggrieved.

It was, therefore, submitted that at least a part of cause of action had certainly arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and hence it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside by directing the Court to decide the writ petition on merits.

9. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that neither of the above facts nor circumstances can be said to be a part of cause of action investing jurisdiction in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. According to the respondents, all substantial, material and integral facts constituting a cause of action were within the territory of the State of Sikkim and, hence, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was fully justified in holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, deal with and decide the lis between the parties.

10. The respondents, in this connection, relied upon the following