Back
Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Depends on Authority's Location, Not Petitioner's Residence:
Introduction: A Question of Where, Not Who
The has firmly reiterated a fundamental principle of constitutional remedy: under hinges on the location of the authority whose order is challenged, not on the residence of the person aggrieved. Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed a filed by a candidate whose job offer was withdrawn, holding that the court had no power to entertain the matter since the originated from an authority in Himachal Pradesh.
Background: A Selection Derailed by Pending Cases
The petitioner, Yadvendra Singh, belonged to the OBC category and applied for the post of Tradesman Mate (formerly Mazdoor) at the in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. He successfully cleared every stage of the selection process conducted in 2015. However, his candidature was later cancelled and his appointment letter withdrawn due to criminal cases pending against him. Aggrieved by the order dated passed by the Administrative Officer of the depot, Singh approached the , seeking its quashing.
The Jurisdictional Hurdle: A
Before the merits could be argued, the respondents— and the depot authorities—raised a : the lacked . They pointed out that the authority that passed the was located in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, and that the petitioner's mere residence within Uttar Pradesh could not confer jurisdiction on this court.
Petitioner's Plea: A Part of
Counsel for the petitioner, , attempted to invoke the concept of a "" arising within the state. He relied on judgments from the in and the in , as well as a Division Bench decision of the in . These cases, he argued, supported the view that if a candidate applied from within a state and the selection process had some connection with that state, the High Court could assume jurisdiction.
The : Khajoor Singh Settles the Law
However, the respondents countered with a far more authoritative precedent—the seven-judge bench decision of the in . Justice Gupta quoted extensively from paragraph 13 of that judgment, which unequivocally holds:
"the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by Article 226 does not depend upon the residence or location of the person applying to it for relief; it depends only on the person or authority against whom a writ is sought being within those territories."
The in
Khajoor Singh
had emphatically rejected the idea of introducing the
"concept of the place where the order passed has effect"
to determine jurisdiction. Instead, the focus must remain solely on where the authority is located.
Court's Analysis: No Basis to Assume Jurisdiction
Applying this principle, the noted that both the respondent authorities—the and its Administrative Officer—were situated in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. The advertisement for the posts, the entire selection process, and the impugned cancellation order all originated from that state. No part of the arose within the territorial limits of the .
The court distinguished the authorities cited by the petitioner, observing that they dealt with situations where some part of the —such as holding an examination—occurred within the state. Here, no such connection existed. The depot had not conducted any selection activity in Uttar Pradesh.
Key Observations
The court's reasoning was succinct and anchored in the :
"In view of the categorical observation by the Apex Court in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh (supra), apparently, this Court will not have any jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition."
The judgment underscores that a petitioner cannot drag a respondent to a distant forum merely because of the petitioner's own convenience or residence. The remedy under Article 226 is to be sought where the authority is located.
Decision: Petition Dismissed with Liberty to Approach Proper Forum
The High Court dismissed the for . However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the courts of appropriate jurisdiction—presumably the or the —for redressal of his grievance. The order was passed on .
Implications
This ruling serves as a stark reminder to litigants that based on personal residence is impermissible under Article 226. The decision reinforces the territorial integrity of High Court jurisdiction and ensures that authorities are not compelled to defend themselves in courts far from their place of functioning, thereby preventing confusion and conflicting judgments.
