Patna High Court · 2010
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6384 of 2011 ====================================================== Priyanka Sharma D/O Manoj Kumar, Resident 0f Mohalla-B-215, Tirupatti Medico, Birla Colony, Phulwarisharif, P.S- Danapur, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Food Corporation of India through its Managing Director, F.C.I, Head Quarter, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager (Regional), Food Corporation of India, Regional Officer, Kapa, Raipur, State of Chhatisgarh. 3. The Executive Director (West), Food Corporation Of India, Zonal Officer (West), Mumbai, State of Maharastra. 4. The Manager (Movt.), Food Corporation Of India, Zonal Office (West), Mumbai, State of Maharastra. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra, with Mr. Vijay Kumar Mukul, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 12 07-02-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Legal Reasoning
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the notice dated 22.03.2011 put on Website of the respondent- Food Corporation of India (in short ‘FCI’), as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, whereby the final select list of candidates published on 26.02.2011 on the Website of the FCI against the recruitment advertisement dated 31.07.2010 for appointment to the post of Assistant Grade-III (Accounts) and Assistant Grade-III (Depot) in the FCI West Zone was withdrawn/ cancelled, has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the impugned action of the respondent Corporation and its functionaries. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a direction to the respondents for allowing her to join the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depot) as per offer of appointment dated Patna High Court CWJC No.6384 of 2011 (12) dt.07-02-2013 2/6 05.03.2011 (Annexure-5) issued by the Assistant General Manager (Personnel) of the Respondent Corporation. 3. Certain facts would be relevant for determination of issues raised in the present proceeding. It is the common case of the parties that recruitment advertisement dated 31.07.2010 was issued on the Website of the Respondent Corporation inviting applications from eligible candidates for altogether 695 Assistant Grade-III posts. The appointment on the advertised/ notified posts was required to be made for the western zone of the respondent Corporation, which comprises of four regions of Gujrat, Maharastra, Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh. The recruitment advertisement has been brought on the record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner applied for her appointment in response to the aforesaid advertisement and she was issued Admit card, as contained in Annexure-2, and the Examination centre of the petitioner was fixed at Bhopal, the Capital of the State of Madhya Pradesh. In fact, as per the advertisement, as contained in Annexure-1 itself, only four cities were specified, where the examinations were required to take place and those four cities are Ahmdabad, Bhopal, Mumbai and Raipur. The petitioner appeared in the written test held on 19th December 2010 at Bhopal and she was declared successful in the written test. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued call- letter, as contained in Annexure-3, asking her to appear for verification of documents on 3rd February 2011 at FCI Regional Office, Chetak Building, Habibganj, Bhopal. Accordingly, the petitioner produced all her documents for verification on the date and venue fixed and finally the results of the successful candidates were published on 26.02.20111 on the Website of the respondent Corporation, part of which have been Patna High Court CWJC No.6384 of 2011 (12) dt.07-02-2013 3/6
Decision
brought at Annexure-4 to the writ petition, where the name of the petitioner is at serial no. 140 amongst unreserved category candidates. Whereafter, offer of appointment for the post of Assistant Grade III (Depot) was issued to the petitioner by letter dated 05.03.2011 (Annexure-5) from the regional office of respondent Corporation at Kapa, Raipur (Chhatisgarh) under the signature of Assistant General Manager (Personnel) for General Manager (Region). 4. Grievance of the petitioner is that when she was finally selected for the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depot) and she was making preparation for joining the post, then suddenly impugned notice dated 22.03.2011 was published on the Website of the respondent Corporation withdrawing/ cancelling the entire final select list. Consequently, the offer of appointment issued to the successful candidates, including the petitioner stood withdrawn/ cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in cancelling/ withdrawing the final select list as also the offer of appointment without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law and the petitioner is entitled for a direction upon the respondents by this Court for her appointment on the post of Assistant Grade-III (Depot). 5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents at the very outset has raised the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court. According to the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, no cause of action has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Bihar; therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Patna High Court CWJC No.6384 of 2011 (12) dt.07-02-2013 4/6 the present writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, appointment on the post of the Assistant Grade-III was to be made by the west zone of the respondent Corporation. Written test of the petitioner was held at Bhopal (M.P.). Documents of the petitioner were verified at Bhopal. It is asserted that in fact, no cause of action has taken place within the State of Bihar. It is contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, and, therefore, the matter may not be considered on merit, and may be left to be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, if such issues are raised on behalf of the petitioner. In support of the above, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others vs. M/S Swaika Properties and another [ (1985)3 SCC 217 = AIR 1985 SC 1389] as also in ALCHEMIST LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE BANK OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS [ (2007) 11 SCC 335] . It is also pleaded that the respondents have taken specific plea of lack of jurisdiction of this Court in paragraph-5 to 7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. In reply to the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the resident of the State of Bihar. She has received all the communications including the communication regarding cancellation of select list at her residential address in the State of Bihar. Therefore, according to him, the present writ petition is maintainable before this Court. In support of the above contention he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rameshwar Prasad vs. The Union of India & Ors [ 2003 (2) PLJR 151] and the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Navinchandra N. Patna High Court CWJC No.6384 of 2011 (12) dt.07-02-2013 5/6 Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ 2000(4) PLJR (SC) 200] as also in A.V.M. SALES CORPORATION VS. ANURADHA CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED [(2012)2 SCC 315]. 7. It is true that in the case of Rameshwar Prasad vs. The Union of India & Ors. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held the writ petition is maintainable before this Court on the ground that the petitioner of that case had received the order of dismissal in the State of Bihar. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that since the order of dismissal becomes effective only when it is communicated or made to known to the person concerned and since the order of dismissal was communicated to the petitioner at his village home, therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. However, the present is not the case of dismissal from service. It is the case of cancellation of entire select list, which includes the selection of the petitioner also. It is well settled that mere inclusion of the name of a particular candidate in the select list does not confer upon him the indefeasible right of appointment on that post. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that only she was singled out for cancellation of her selection; rather admittedly entire select list was cancelled. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court shall not salvage the case of the petitioner. However, with respect to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Navichandra N. Majithia vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra) as also in A.V.M. SALES CORPORATION VS. ANURADHA CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED (Supra) there is absolutely no quarrel, but the facts of those cases are entirely different from the facts of the present case Patna High Court CWJC No.6384 of 2011 (12) dt.07-02-2013 6/6 and shall not in any manner salvage the case of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the facts of the present case is squarely covered by the facts as also the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others vs. M/S Swaika properties and another (supra). 8. After having heard the parties and considering the materials available on record as also the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court finds that no legal injury has been caused to the petitioner by the respondents Corporation within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The cause of action, if at all, has accrued to the petitioner beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Bihar. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum/ court for appropriate relief admissible to her. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)