IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Mritunjay Kumar Nand – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 18154 of 2021
Decided On : 04-05-2022
Constitution of India, 1970 - Article 226/227 - Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Section 14, 3(o) - Certiorari - Power of High court to issue writs - Petitioner being possessed with matriculation and intermediate mark-sheets/certificates and three Years diploma in Architectural Assistantship, applied for post of Draughtsman through offline application form - Jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being within those territories and the residence or location of the person affected can have no relevance on the question of the High Courts jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
It is apparently clear that that petitioner has misrepresented Court by means of present writ petition only in order to obtain fruitful order - When a person approaches a Court of Equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution, he should approach Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective - Court finds that as per terms and conditions mentioned in said advertisement itself, it has been provided that in case any legal issues arises pursuant to aforesaid advertisement, same shall be adjudicated upon before High Court of Delhi.
Results: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has made following relief:
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith issue appointment letter and confer appointment in favour of petitioner as Draughtsman in General Reserve Engineer Force, Cenre DIGHI Camp Pune, Maharashthra......”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/2021 dated 20th February, 2021, the petitioner being possessed with matriculation and intermediate mark-sheets/certificates and three Years diploma in Architectural Assistantship, applied for the post of Draughtsman through offline application form. As per the said advertisement, total 43 posts of draughtsman were advertised in following categories: (i) 19 posts for Unreserved category candidates, (ii) 6 posts for Scheduled Caste category candidates, (iii) 3 posts for Scheduled Tribe Category candidates, (iv) 11 posts for Other Backward Class category candidates and (v) 4 posts for Economic Weaker Section category candidates. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and was declared successful and his name was placed at serial no. 22 of the result. By means of letter dated 20th September, 2021, the petitioner was required to appear in the physical efficiency test and primary medical examination which were scheduled to be held between 25th October, 2021 to 27th October, 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has received an order dated 26th October, 2021 at his residence at District Azamgarh wherein it has been mentioned that due to overlapping of Intermediate Examination Marksheet/ certificate and Diploma Degree of the petitioner, he could not be given placement and selection. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Challenging the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned cannot sustain the scrutiny of law, as there would be no bar in obtaining two degrees in one and same academic session. The order impugned is an ex-parte order, as before passing the same, neither the petitioner has been afforded opportunity of hearing nor any show-cause notice has been issued to him. Even otherwise, the petitioner would submit that he undertook admission in the academic session 2013-2014 in Intermediate as a private student, whereas he took admission in undergoing diploma course in Architectural Assistantship in academic-session 2012-2015 as a regular student. The bar in obtaining two degrees in a particular academic session would be restricted only to regular candidates and not private students. The impugned order does not provide any law based upon which an alleged overlapping was stood to be not taken for consideration for conferring appointment. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned cannot be legally sustained and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised maintainability of the present writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on the ground that the advertisement No. 1/2021 dated 20th February, 2021 has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Border Roads Wing, Border Roads Organization, General Reserve Engineer Force of which neither the headquarter nor any office of the same is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The place wherein all the examinations i.e. written examination, physical effic
The Ramjas Foundation and Others vs. Union of India and Others
U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad vs. State of U.P. (1995) 4 SCC 738
Union of India vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and Another
State of Haryana vs. Karnal Distillery
Sunkara Lakshminarasamma vs. Sagi Subba Raju
Sabia Khan and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others
S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and Others
Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association vs. Union of India
Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India
Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Uptal Kumar Basu
Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
M/s. Tilokchand Motichand and Others vs. H.B. Munshi and Another
L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Others
Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh vs. Union of India
K.P. Srinivas vs. R.M. Premchand and Others
K.K. Modi vs. K.N. Modi and Others
G. Jayashree vs. Bhagwandas S. Patel
Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao vs. K Parasaran and Others
Devi Saran Mishra vs. Union of India and Others
Board of Trustees for Port of Calcutta vs. Bombay Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1995 SC 577
The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal must be established by where the cause of action arises, especially in online applications.
The court highlighted that mere receipt of a rejection letter does not establish territorial jurisdiction if the cancellation decision originates from another jurisdiction.
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.
The court emphasized that a dismissal must be proportionate to the misconduct and that procedural violations in disciplinary inquiries can invalidate the outcome.
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 ....
(1) Delhi High Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain matters related to BSF.(2) Doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only where multiple fora are available to a litigant for seek....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.