Mere service of a cancellation order or communication at a person's residence does not constitute a 'part cause of action' for invoking territorial jurisdiction, as the service of an order provides a right of action but not the cause of action itself.

Per : Hon’ble Mr Justice Rameshwar Vyas

The instant order shall decide the objection raised by the respondents with regard to having territorial jurisdiction of this Bench to adjudicate the present matter.

1.1 As per facts of the case, the applicant after clearing competitive examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) was offered appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) [hereinafter referred to as JE Civil] in Military Engineering Service (MES) in the office of Garrison Engineer (South) [GE (South)] Patiala vide communication dated 10.09.2018 (Annex. A/2) issued by Headquarters, Chief Engineer, Western Command situated at Chandigarh. However, vide communication dated 11.03.2019 (Annex. A/1), he has been informed that above offer of appointment is cancelled on account of not disclosing by the applicant the charge sheet filed against him under Section 498A and 406 of the IPC on 15.01.2018, i.e. prior to filing SSC form on 18.01.2018.

1.2 Aggrieved with the above, the applicant has preferred this OA invoking territorial jurisdiction of Jodhpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that order of cancellation of appointment has been served to him at his residential address of Siwana, Barmer.

2. As per preliminary objection raised by the respondents, the offer and cancellation of appointment were issued from Chandigarh, therefore, merely receiving it at his residence in Siwana, Barmer cannot furnish any cause of action at Jodhpur.

3. As per rejoinder filed to the above objection by the applicant, the part cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench, i.e. Barmer where the impugned order has been served and came into effect. In this regard, the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Sarwajeet Singh v Union of India & Ors, SBCWP NO. 14091/2013 decided on 17.12.2015 wherein Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court observed that “In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that as the appellate order was served on the petitioner at Sriganganagar (Rajasthan), a part cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable before this Court. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents is, therefore, overruled and rejected.” It is averred that the ratio of aforesaid judgment covers the objection raised by the respondents in this matter.

4. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, it emerges that the applicant who is resident of Barmer district which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench participated in open competitive examination for recruitment for the post of JE (Civil), Group ‘B’ non-gazetted post in pursuance of notice issued by the SSC. It is not in dispute that after clearing the competitive examination, he was given offer of appointment on the post of JE (Civil) in the office of GE (South) Patiala vide letter dated 10.09.2016 (Annex. A/2). It is also not in dispute that the above offer of appointment has also been cancelled vide impugned order dated 11.03.2019 (Annex. A/1) issued by HQ CE WC Chandigarh. Above facts reveal that the Office ordering cancellation of the offer of appointment is not located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. The place of joining offered to the applicant is also not within the territorial limits of the