Back
2004(1) JLJ 275
Dipak Misra and A.K. Shrivastava, J.
Shrikishan Yadav v. Commandant, Central Reserve Police
Force and others
L.P.A. No. 43 of 2002; against the order of Single Bench passed in
Writ Petition No. 5870 of 2001;
Decided on 4.2.2003.
The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner‘), invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, instituted the writ petition for issue of an appropriate writ to the respondents herein for conferral of benefit of compassionate appointment on him. The facts which are essential for adjudicating the controversy are that the father of the petitioner late Bhurelal Yadav, who was a Sub-Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force (for brevity ‘the CRPF), expired on 16.9.1999 in harness in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The family being in distress, the mother of the petitioner preferred an application before the Deputy Inspector General, Police CRPF, Sundernagar, Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar to grant appointment on compassionate ground to her son. The application was rejected by order dated 20.3.2001, Annexure P-12 to the writ petition, by the Commandant working in the office of the Director General of CRPF on the ground that on medical examination, the petitioner was found suffering from colour blindness as well as high blood pressure and hence, was not eligible to be appointed. [Para 2
The aforesaid order was sought to be assailed in the writ petition and a prayer was made for issue of writ of mandamus to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. [Para 3
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. [Para 4
Held : In the case at hand, a bald order has been passed that petitioner has been found unfit because he suffers from colour blindness and high blood pressure. Communication has been received within the State of Madhya Pradesh where the petitioner resides. We may repeat at the cost of repetition that mere receipt of communication always may not give rise to the cause of action partly but in the case of compassionate appointment, it has to be given some weightage. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that the father of the petitioner had died in harness while serving in CRPF. CRPF is not a local body or a small institution of the State. When a query was made to Mrs. Nair whether the compassionate appointments are centrally monitored, she answered in the positive that it is centrally monitored. When it is centrally monitored or controlled, we are of the considered view that the cause of action can arise anywhere in the country as a person can be appointed in any of the States in India and does not have the right to claim a posting in a particular State. [Para 23
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226(2) -- cause of action -- whether service of notice is an integral part of cause of action -- must depend upon nature of impugned order giving rise to cause of action. AIR 1985 SC 1289 followed. [Para 7
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 2 R. 2 -- Constitution of India -- Art. 226(2) -- Chief of Army Staff -- can be sued anywhere in the country -- this is one concept that cause of action cannot be allowed to corrode.(2001) 9 SCC 525 followed. 2002(2) JLJ 86 relied on. [Para 13
(4) Army Act, 1950 -- S. 3(iv) -- Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 -- Ss. 8 and 18 -- Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 -- R. 2( dd) -- Chief of Anny Staff as defined under 1950 Act and Director General of CRPF as defined under R. 2 of 1955 Rules -- have equal status -- both can be sued anywhere in country.
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 226(2) -- writ petition against Director General of CRPF -- is maintainable anywhere in country.
If the provisions in the enactment and the rule framed therein are appreciated in proper perspective and studied with deep scrutiny it becomes luminous that an analogy can be drawn between the Director General and the Chief of Army Staff that equal exercise of jurisdiction/power/authority lies over their employees/staff/ forces.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that law laid down in the case of Dinesh Chandra Gahtori [(2001) 9 SCC 525] though rendered in regard to Chief of Army Staff it shall be applicable to the Director General of CRPF, which comes within the expression of armed forces of the Union. Thus, on this foundation, we have no hesitation in holding that the writ petition before this Court is maintainable. (2001)9 SCC 525 followed. (2000)7 SCC 640 discussed and followed. 2002(2) JLJ 86 relied on. [Paras 20 & 21
(6) Constitution of India -- Art. 226(2) -- tender for works contract -- jurisdiction vests in the High Court where work is to be carried out -- situation of head office of company is irrelevant. (1994) 4 SCC 711 followed. [Para 8
(7) Constitution of India -- Art. 226(2) -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 2 R. 2 -- cause of action -- contract executed in Bombay -- work also to be done in Bombay -- simply because bank guarantee was executed in Delhi, Delhi Court would not have jurisdiction. (1996) 3 SCC 443 followed. [Para 9
(8) Constitution of India -- Art. 226(2) -- none of the claimants ~ carrying on business within the jurisdiction of High Court -- such High Court has no jurisdiction. AIR 1998 SC 2330 followed. [Para 10
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 rFkk 226¼2½ && dsanzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy esa vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh izkFkZuk && ;kph dk fuokl e/; izns‘k esa && ml jkT; ds mPp U;k;ky; dks Hkh vf/kdkfjrk gS tgk¡ lalwpuk izkIr gqbZ gS && dqVqac dk d"V vkSj ?kksj O;Fkk n`f"V esa j[krs gq, vkosnu ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,A lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu U;k;ky; dh vlk/kkj.k vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; ys dj vihykFkhZ us ¼,rfLeu~i‘pkr~ *;kph dh Hkk¡fr fufnZ"V½ mls vuqdaik fu;qfDr dk Qk;nk iznÙk djus ds fy, izLrqr izR;fFkZ;ksa dks leqfpr fjV tkjh djus ds fy, fjV ;kfpdk lafLFkr dhA lafookn dk U;k;kfu.kZ;u djus ds fy, vfuok;Z rF; bl izdkj gS fd ;kph dk firk] fnoaxr Hkwjsyky ;kno dk] tks dsanzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy ¼la{ksi esa *lh vkj ih ,Q*½ esa mifujh{kd Fkk] dqVqac d"V esa gksus ds dkj.k dk;Zjr jgrs gq, 16-9-1999 dks nsgkar gqvk FkkA dqVqac d"V esa gksus ds dkj.k ;kph dh ekrk us fcgkj jkT; esa mifujh{kd] iqfyl lh vkj ih ,Q] laaqnjuxj te‘ksniqj ds le{k mlds iq= dks vuqdaik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr fn, tkus ds fy, vkosnu fd;kA og vkosnu fnukad 20-3-2001 ds vkns‘k] fjV ;kfpdk dk mikca/k ih&12 }kjk lh vkj ih ,Q egkfuns‘kd ds dk;kZy; essa dk;Zjr lekns‘k }kjk bl vk/kkj ij ukeatwj dj fn;k x;k fd LokLF; ijh{k.k djus ij ;kph jaxka/kh d lkFk&gh mPPk jDrpki dh chekjh ls xzLr ik;k x;k vr% og fu;qfDr dk ik= ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 2À fjV ;kfpdk esa mi;qZDr vkns‘k vkf{kIr fd;k x;k rFkk lgk;d mifujh{kd ds in ij ;kph dks fu;qDr djus ds fy, ijekns‘k fjV tkjh fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA ¿ iSjk 3À fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us fjV ;kfpdk vkjaHk esa gh bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dj nh fd bl U;k;ky; dks {ks=h; vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 4À vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izLrqr ekeys esa] dkj.kjfgr vkns‘k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS fd ;kph v;ksX; ik;k x;k gS D;ksfd og jaxka/kh vkSj mPp jDrpki ls xzLr gSA lalwpuk e/; izns‘k jkT; ds Hkhrj izkIr dh xbZ gS tgk¡ ;kph fuokl djrk gSA ge iqujko`fÙk ds tksf[ke ij ;g nksgjkuk pkgssaxs fd lalwpuk izkfIr ek= ls lnSo okn gsrqd Hkkxr% mn~Hkwr ugha gksrk fdarq vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds ekeys esa bls FkksM+k egRo nsuk gksxkA ;g U;k;ky; bl rF; ls vufHkK ugha gS ;kph ds firk dk nsgkar lh vkj ih ,Q esa dk;Zjr jgrs gqvk FkkA lh vkj ih ,Q LFkkuh; fudk; ;k jkT; dh NksVh&lh laLFkk ugha gSA tc Jherh uk;j ls iwNk x;k fd D;k vuqdaik fu;qfDr;k¡ dsanzh; Lrj ij ekuhVj dh tkrh gS rks mUgkssaus ldkjkRed mÙkj fn;k fd og dsanzh; Lrj gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd okn&gsrqd Lrj ij ekuhVj ;k fu;af=r gksrh gSa rc gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd okn&gsrqd ns‘k esa dgha Hkh mn~Hkwr gks ldrk gS D;ksafd O;fDr Hkkjr ds fdlh Hkh jkT; esa fu;qDr fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj mls fdlh fof‘k"V jkT; esa rSuke fd, tkus dh ek¡x djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA ¿ iSjk 7À ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226¼2½ && okn gsrqd && lwpuk dh rkehy okn gsrqd dk vfHké vax gS ;k ugha && okn gsrqd mn~Hkwr djkus okys vkf{kIr vkns‘k ds Lo:i ij fuHkZj gksxkA , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 1289 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7À ¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 2 fu- 2 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226¼2½ && Fkylsuk/;{k && ij ns‘k esa dgha Hkh eqdnek pyk;k tk ldrk gS && ;g ,d ,slh ladYiuk gS tks okn gsrqd ls u"V ugha gksus nh tk ldrhA ¼2001½ 9 ,l lh lh 525 vuqlfjrA 2002¼2½ ts ,y ts 86 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 13À ¼4½ lsok vf/kfu;e] 1950 && /kkjk 3 && dsanzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy vf/kfu;e] 21949 && /kkjk 8 rFkk 18 && dsnzh; fjtoZ iqfyl cy fu;e] 1955 && fu- 2¼?k?k½ && 1950 ds vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr Fkylsuk/;{k rFkk 1955 ds fu;eksa ds fu- 2 ds v/khu ;FkkifjHkkf"kr lh vkj ih ,Q dk egkfuns‘kd && leku izkfLFkfr gS && nksuksa ij ns‘k esa dgha Hkh eqdnek pyk;k tk ldrk gSA ¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226¼2½ && lh vkj ih ,Q ds egkfuns‘kd ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk && ns‘k esa dgha Hkh pykus ;ksX; gSA ;fn vf/kfu;fefr vkSj rn/khu fojfpr fu;e ds mica/k lgh ifjizs{; esa le>s tk,¡ rFkk laoh{kk ls mudk v/;;u fd;k tk, rc ;g izdV gks tkrk gS fd egkfuns‘kd vkSj Fkylsuk/;{k esa lk-‘; LFkkfir fd;k tk ldrk gS fd nksuksa dks vius deZpkfj;ks@deZpkfjo`an@cyksa ds laca/k esa leku vf/kdkfjrk@‘kfDr@izkf/kdkj izkIr gSA iwoksZDr dh n`f"V ls gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd fnus‘kpanz xgrksjh ¿ ¼2001½ 9 ,l lh lh 525À ds ekeys es vf/kdfFkr fof/k] ;|fi og Fkylsuk/;{k ds v/khu vkrk gS] egkfuns‘kd ij Hkh ykxw gksxhA bl izdkj] bl vk/kkj ij gesa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa ladksp ugha gS fd bl U;k;ky; ds le{k fjV ;kfpdk pykus ;ksX; gSA ¼2001½ 9 ,l lh lh 525 vuqlfjrA ¼2000½ 7 ,l lh lh 640 foosfpr vkSj vuqlfjrA 2002¼2½ ts ,y ts 86 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 20 ,oa 21À ¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226¼2½ && ladeZ Bsds ds fy, fufonk && vf/kdkfjrk ogk¡ ls mPp U;k;ky; esa fufgr gs tgk¡ dk;Z fd;k tkuk gS && daiuh ds eq[;ky; dk LFkku valxr gSA ¼1994½ 4 ,l lh lh 443 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8À ¼7½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226¼2½ && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 2 fu- 2 && okn gsrqd && lafonk cacbZ esa fu"ikfnr && dk;Z Hkh cacbZ eas gh fd;k tkuk gS && ek= blfy, fd cSad xkjaVh fnYyh eas fu"ikfnr gqbZ Fkh] fnYyh U;k;ky; dks vf/kdkfjrk ugha gksxhA ¼1996½ 3 ,l lh lh 443 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 9À ¼8½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226¼2½ && nkosnkjksa esa ls fdlh dk Hkh dkjckj mPp U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk ds Hkhrj ugah && ,sls mPp U;k;ky; dks vf/kdkfjrk ugha gS , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 2330 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 10À
Misra, J. -- 1. Defensibility and sustainability of the order dated 11.12.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5870/01 is called in question in this appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
2. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, instituted the aforesaid writ petition for issue of an appropriate writ to the respondents herein for conferral of benefit of compassionate appointment on him. The facts which are essential for adjudicating the controversy are that the father of the petitioner lute Bhurelal Yadav, who was a Sub-Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force (for brevity 'the CRPF'), expired on 16.9.1999 in harness in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The family being in distress, the mother of the petitioner preferred an application before the Deputy Inspector General, Police CRPF, Sundernagar, Jamshedpur in the State of Bihar to grant appointment on compassionate ground to her son. The application was rejected by order dated 20.3.2001, Annexure P-12 to the writ petition, by the Commandant working in the office of the Director General of CRPF on the ground that on medical examination, the petitioner was found suffering from colour blindness as well as high blood pressure and hence, was not eligible to be appointed. It is relevant to state that the said intimation was communicated to the mother of the petitioner.
3. The aforesaid order was sought to be assailed in the writ petition and a prayer was made for issue of writ of mandamus to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. We may at this juncture state that when a query was made in regard to the relief sought, Mr. Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there is no prayer for quashment of the order contained in Annexure P-12, this Court may mould the relief in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction. And we accede to the same.
4. It is relevant to state that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in limine on the the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction as all the respondents have their offices outsides the geographical area of the State and no cause of action either in whole or in part has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As the matter required a different type of deliberation and the issue was complex, we sought the assistance of Mr. S.K. Yadav, learned counsel who immediately agreed to render us the assistance and accordingly he was appointed as the friend of the Court.
5. Assailing the order impugned, it is submitted by Mr. S.K. Yadav being assisted by Mr. Tamarakar, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the peculiar facts of this case and the decisions which have been placed reliance upon for the purpose of providing jurisdiction are quite different and in fact, distinguishable. It is urged by them that the Director General, who is the Director of CRPF has been defined under Rule 2(dd) of the CRPF, Rules, 1955 framed under the CRPF Act, 1949. From the definition of Rule 4, 4-A and 5 it. would be grafically clear that the authority is the highest one at the all India level and exercises equivalent power as the Chief of Army Staff. As per the provision of Army Act, 1950 exercise of power is with the regular army. It is arged by them that CRPF is not within the military force though this is within the expression of armed forces of the Union and hence, analogy has to be drawn between the Chief of Army Staff and Director General of CRPF, as far as the concept of institution is concerned. To bolster this facet of submission, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Akhilesh Prasad v. Union Territory of Mizoram 1981(2) SCC 150 and Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff 2001(9) SCC 525.
5-A. The second limb of. submis
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
