Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Rahul Yadav - Appellant
Versus
IDBI Bank - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5479 of 2020
Decided On : 10-05-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges cancellation of admission. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent challenges maintainability under article 226. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. petitioner argues against jurisdictional objections. (Para 13 , 15 , 18) |
| 4. court examines territorial jurisdiction based on cause of action. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. post-amendment interpretation of article 226's jurisdiction. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. court reasons rejection letter does not confer jurisdiction. (Para 39 , 42 , 46) |
| 7. final order dismisses petition, leaving questions open. (Para 52 , 53) |
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing letter dated 22.06.2020, whereby Respondent has cancelled the candidature of the Petitioner for admission to one year Post Graduate Diploma in Banking and Finance (PGDBF) at Manipal School of Banking, Bengaluru for the year 2019-2020, granted earlier, vide letter dated 04.03.2020.
2. Brief facts germane to the issue under consideration are in a narrow compass and are as follows:
(a). Respondent issued Advertisement No.2/2019-2020 dated 21.06.2019 for admission to one year PGDBF, at Manipal School of Banking, Bengaluru for the year 2019-2020. Upon successful completion of PGDBF, candidates were to be inducted in the Respondent Bank at the post of Assistant Manager Grade-`A', subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement.
(b). Advertisement was issued from Mumbai requiring the candidates to apply online between 23.06.2019 to 03.07.2019 and no other mode of application was acceptable. The selection process comprised of online test, followed by personal interview.
(c). Desirous of getting admission in PGDBF, followed by appointment in IDBI, Petitioner applied in response to the advertisement and appeared in the online test and personal interview. Vide letter dated 04.03.2020, Petitioner was informed that he had been selected for admission and was directed to report on 16.03.2020.
(d). Relevant would it be to mention at this stage that prior to the submission of the application for admission to PGDBF, Petitioner had filed a petition, being HMA Petition No.1412/2019, for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi, on account of a marital discord. Petition was listed for the first time on 10.05.2019 and was pending on the date of application for PGDBF.
(e). The application form required the candidates to furnish details of any prosecution/detention/fine/conviction/sentence awarded by any Court of law for any offence. Petitioner responded by filling `No' against the relevant column as on the date of the application, none of the above was applicable. FIR No. 355/2019 under Sections 498A/506/323/343/34 IPC was registered against the Petitioner and his family members on 15.12.2019, at the behest of his wife.
(f). On receipt of letter dated 04.03.2020, offering admission, Petitioner on his own volition wrote to the Respondent and disclosed registration of FIR against him. When Petitioner reported for training at Manipal Campus, Bengaluru, he was not allowed to join training and was informed that on account of the criminal case, decision to grant him admission was being re-considered and he would be informed of the outcome.
(g). Vide impugned letter dated 22.06.2020, Petitioner was informed of cancellation of his admission to PGDBF. Immediately on receipt of the letter, Petitioner sent an e-mail dated 14.07.2020, requesting the Respondent to revisit its decision, as the same was premised on mere allegations, which in any event were false and yet to undergo the test of judicial scrutiny. Getting no response, Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. At the outset, twofold preliminary objections were raised by the Respondent to the maintainability of the prese
High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 is contingent upon the presence of a cause of action within its territorial limits, as clarified by recent rulings.
Point of Law : Territorial jurisdiction - Prior to Constitutional (Fifteenth Amendment Act, 1963, concept of cause of action was alien for adjudication of disputes by High Court under Article 226 of ....
Territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution is determined by whether the cause of action, either in whole or in part, has arisen within its territorial limits.
The court ruled that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions when the integral part of the cause of action arises outside its territorial limits, despite minor connections to th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'cause of action' and the concept of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to the notice....
The finality of the inter partes judgment and the impact of the Full Bench's decision on the Division Bench judgment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
