By the Court.—This intra Court appeal filed under the Rules of the Court is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 28th July, 2011 dismissing the petitioner-appellant’s writ petition in limine on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The relevant facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are as under :

4. The petitioner-appellant was an applicant for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in pursuance to an advertisement issued in the year 2001. After being successful in the written examination as well as physical and medical examination and interview, he was issued appointment letter dated 9.11.2010 directing him to report for training at National Industrial Security Academy, Hyderabad. The appointment order was accompanied with copy of attestation form and questionnaire requiring him to disclose whether he has ever been convicted by any Court of law or any other judicial institution or is there any case pending in any Court of law and has any FIR been lodged and the case is pending and whether any FIR was ever lodged in the past. The petitioner-appellant disclosed in the questionnaire that an FIR under Section 498-A read with Section 304-B IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act was lodged against him, registered as Case Crime No. 515 of 2008 wherein he was charge-sheeted but later on acquitted. vide order dated 9.6.2011 passed by the Commandant/TRG, CISF NISA, Hyderabad, the offer of appointment made to the petitioner-appellant was withdrawn on the ground that he was not found suitable for the post of Sub-Inspector. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner-appellant approached this Court by filing writ petition.

5. Preliminary objection raised by the learned Assistant Solicitor General with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction was upheld by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that since the appellant is residing within the State of U. P. and further his selection and appointment on the post in question has been cancelled mainly on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case instituted within the State of U. P., hence this Court has jurisdiction. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2007) 7 SCC 640. It is further submitted that since the cancellation of his appointment was on account of involvement in a criminal case within the State of U. P., hence part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the learned Single Judge committed manifest error of law in dismissing the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction.

7. The records of the writ petition indicate that the letter dated 9.11.2010 making an offer of appointment to the petitioner-appellant was issued by Commandant, NISA, Hyderabad. In pursuance whereof, the petitioner-appellant reported for training at Hyderabad and vide letter dated 9.6.2011 the offer made to him was withdrawn as he was not found suitable. The withdrawal letter was also issued by the Commandant, CISF, NISA, Hyderabad.

8. In the back-drop of the above facts, it is to be tested whether any part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court so as to confer jurisdiction upon this Court to test the legality and validity of the order under challenge. The power under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India can only be exercised by the High Court in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, whole or in part, arises for exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. The High Court can ex