Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24034
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M.MANOJ, J
VISHNU V. – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 14241 OF 2020
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
For the Respondents: SMT.MINI GOPINATH
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction concerns regarding service termination petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. no jurisdiction under article 226 for external causes. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2026 The writ petition is preferred by the petitioner, challenging the termination from service as per Ext.P1, against which the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the
3rd respondent, which was also dismissed as per Ext.P3. 2. It is contended that the petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition before the Ministry and filed the present writ petition seeking consideration of the said revision petition. It is further submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondent that the entire issue pertains to the appointment to the CRPF, and that the date of selection was 04.04.2017. The petitioner deserted the training programme after the selection.
3. By Ext.P1, the 4th respondent, which is the authority within the State of Maharashtra, terminated the petitioner’s service. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same before the 3rd respondent, who also rejected the appeal. These are the circumstances under which the petitioner preferred a revision before the Ministry. However, the entire issue pertains to matters arising from the selection process to the CRPF within the State of Maharashtra, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction. This issue has already been covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Indian Maritime University v. Dr. K.G. Viswanathan & Others [2014 (4) KLT
798].
4. I have heard the respective counsel on both sides, and upon considering the averments, it appears that there is force in the contentions advanced by the counsel for the respondents, as the entire cause of arose within the State of Maharashtra, and only the revision petition was preferred from this State, followed by the filing of the present writ petition.
Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226, when the cause of action arose within the State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
