Back
2007 Supreme(Ori) 191
2007 (I) OLR — 573
P. K. TRIPATHY AND PRADIP MOHANTY, JJ.
Jyoti Prakash Nayak...Petitioner
Versus
Union Bank of India and others...Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.1181 of 2006
Decided on 15th March, 2007.
For Petitioner:M/s. A. K. Mohapatra-I, B. P. Rath, G. Senapati & U. C. Nayak
For O.P. No.1:M/s. Sanjit Das, S. Jena and S. Mohanty
For O.Ps. 2, 3 and 6 to 12:M/s. A. K. Mishra, S. K. Ojha, N. R. Pandit, A. K. Sahoo and B. K. Jena
Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Art. 226 - Recruitment to the post of Manager (LAW) - Territorial jurisdiction - Clause 8(1) of the advertisement stipulates that any resultant dispute arising out of the advertisement shall be subject to the sole jurisdic¬tion of the Courts situated at Mumbai - Whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the State of Orissa ? - Adver¬tisement was published inviting applications for 9 categories of posts - Petitioner residing at his permanent residence within the State of Orissa and he applied for the post by giving his permanent address - Petitioner was called to attend written test at Bhubaneswar in the State of Orissa - Petitioner having attended the written test at Bhubaneswar, it can safely be said that a part of cause of action has arisen in Orissa - Petition maintainable.
According to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which speaks of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the power conferred by Clause (1) of Article 226 to issue direc¬tions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power notwith¬standing that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
No advertisement for employment can oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, which flows from Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(Paras - 6 and 7)
JUDGMENT
PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — In view of the order No.7 dated 23.10.2006, this judgment is confined only to the maintainability of the writ petition in this Court.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the appointment of opposite parties 2 to 12 as Manager (Law) in the middle management grade/scale-II in the Union Bank of India (opposite party No.1) and seeks for a direction to opposite party No.1 to appoint him as Manager (Law). The grievance of the peti¬tioner is that opposite parties 2 to 12 have been appointed ignoring his legitimate claim by awarding less marks to him and by allocating unreasonable percentage of marks in the viva voce test.
3. The case of the petitioner is that opposite party No.1 issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Manager (Law) in the Middle Management Grade/Scale-II cadre under the Union Bank Recruitment Project-2004. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed manner. Opposite party No.1 issued admit card in favour of the petitioner directing him to appear in the written test scheduled to be held on 30.05.2004 at the Utkal University campus, Bhubaneswar. Along with the admit card, opposite party No.1 also supplied the bro¬chure to the petitioner for getting himself acquainted with the recruitment test. The petitioner appeared in the written test and as his performance was highly satisfactory, opposite party No.1 issued intimation letter directing him to appear for personal interview on 04.11.1994 at Union Bank of India, Nodal Regional Office,Kolkata. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the personal interview. According to the petitioner, his performance in the interview was highly satisfactory and he was quite confi¬dent of being selected for appointment.His further case is that opposite party No.1 neither published the result of the interview nor did it communicate the result to the petitioner. However, from reliable sources, the petitioner learnt that opposite party No.1 has given appointment to some candidates. So he made an application to opposite party No.1 under the provisions of Right to Information Act in the prescribed manner seeking information about the result of the recruitment test. Pursuant to such application, the Central Public Information Officer of opposite party No.1 supplied necessary information to the petitioner, from which he came to now that opposite party No.1 relaxed the quali¬fying marks in the written test for S.C., S.T. and O.B.C. candi¬dates and fixed different standard/qualifying marks for candi¬dates belonging to different categories. He also came to know that the personal interview carried 50 marks and the candidates had to secure minimum qualifying marks in the following order :-
General — 50 marks
S.C. — 22.5 marks
S.T. — 22.5. marks
O.B.C. — 22.5. marks
It was also intimated to the petitioner that relaxation was done allegedly as per the Government guidelines and opposite par¬ties 2 to 12 were selected for appointment applying the said method.
4. Opposite party No.1 in its counter affidavit has stated that the writ petition is not maintainable in this Court since the advertisement itself ousted the jurisdiction of Courts other than those in Mumbai. Clause 8(1) of the advertisement stipulates that any resultant dispute arising out of this advertisement shall be subject to the sole jurisdiction of the Courts situated at Mumbai. Learned counsel for opposite party No.1 vehemently contended that since the advertisement itself contains such ouster clause and the petitioner had accepted the same while making his application under the Union of Bank Recruitment Project, 2004, he cannot be allowed to prosecute this case in this Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v.Chand Mal Baradia and others, AIR 2005 SC 2161; and Rite Approach Group Ltd. v. Rosobo¬ronexport, (2006) 1 SCC 206.
