Judgment Bapna, J.-This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India.

2. The petitioner, Har Prasad, was employed as Head Travelling Ticket Examiner (Head T. T. E.) and was directed by his superior officer D. T. S. Bandikui, to appear before the District Medical Officer (D. M. O.), Bandikui, for periodical eyesight examination. The D. M. O., after examination, referred Mr. Har Prasad to the Chief Medical Officer (C. M. O.), who declared Mr. Har Prasad as unfit owing to defective eye-sight. Mr. Har Prasad was then ordered by the Chief Traffic Inspector (C. T. I.), Bandikui, to rejoin on the expiry of his leave as Head Ticket Collector at Jaipur on the 2nd of November, 1950. The petitioner filed an appeal to the D. T. S., Bandikui, T. S. Ajmer, C. T. M., Bombay, and General Manager, Bombay. As a result of these representations, he was asked to appear again before the Chief Medical Officer, Bombay, on 8-3-1951. The C. M. O. maintained his earlier opinion and nothing came out of the petitioner’s representations. He has accordingly approached this Court, and has urged that his being posted as Head Ticket Collector involves a reduction in rank, which could not be done without an opportunity being given to him to show cause against the said reduction in rank under Article 311 of the Constitution. It was also urged that the D. M.

O. had declared him medically fit as regards his eye-sight, and the C. M. O. had no authority to declare him unfit. It was also urged that he had been so declared unfit without medical examination either on the first or on the second occasion by the C. M. O. It was alleged that the petitioner had got himself examined by various other doctors, who had testified to his medical fitness. It was prayed that the order’ of his being posted as Head Ticket Collector be quashed, and he may be directed to be reinstated as Head T. T. E.

3. TheUnion of India and the General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay, were made respondents in this petition. A preliminary objection was taken by learned Counsel, who appeared for them, that this Court had no jurisdiction, for the General Manager had his office outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance was placed on --‘Election Commission, India vs. Venkata Rao’, AIR 1953 SC 210 (A). In our opinion, this preliminary objection has no force in the present case. There are two classes of cases where the respondent, a head of a department, against whom relief is sought, is resident outside the jurisdiction of a particular High Court. One class of cases would be where the particular order is passed by an officer resident or having office within the jurisdiction of the High Court, and the superior officer, residing outside the jurisdiction only purports to confirm the order and to dismiss the appeal or revision made by the person affected by the order. The other class of cases would be those where the superior officer residing outside the jurisdiction of the High Court purports to set aside the order of the subordinate officer and substitutes his own order for the same. This would include also a modification of the order passed by the subordinate officer. In the first class of cases what the petitioner wants is that the order of the subordinate officer should be set aside, and he only makes the superior officer a party because he avails of the remedy provided by the rules or the law of approaching the superior officer. In the second class of cases the prayer of the petitioner would directly involve a direction to the superior officer not resident within the jurisdiction. In the present case, the original order of posting of the petitioner Har Prasad as Head Ticket Collector was passed by the C. T. I., Bandikui, and it is that order which is under question in this petition, and it is immaterial that the petitioner’s efforts in setting aside that order right up to the General Manager proved fruitless. The only defect that may arise in the present petition is that the C. T.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document