Dismissed

Manoj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC7 Dec 2016W.P.(C)/11482/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a recruitment process for a Nursing Orderly post in Bangalore on grounds of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that the cause of action arose in Bangalore and followed the Sterling Agro decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition not entertained on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Connected miscellaneous application disposed of.

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 11482/2016 & CM No.45122/2016 MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudershan Kumar Dhanker, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. B.S. Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Mimansak Bhardwaj, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR O R D E R % 07.12.2016

¶4

We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

¶5

The petitioner, who is a resident of Haryana, had applied for selection to the post of Nursing Orderly in the recruitment process conducted by ESIC Recruitment Board at Bangalore. He alleges certain irregularities in the said recruitment process.

¶6

The petitioner had filed OA No.2616/2014 before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Delhi. The respondents, in their reply, had raised objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction. The

¶7

Tribunal, in the impugned order, observed that there was ‘some merit’ in the preliminary objection on the point of territorial jurisdiction, yet, as notices had been earlier issued by the Coordinate Bench and interim order had been granted, they were deciding the matter on merits.

¶8

We find that the entire cause of action in the present writ petition had arisen in Bangalore, where the recruitment process was undertaken.

¶9

As noticed above, the petitioner has alleged irregularities in the said recruitment process. Mere fact that ESIC Headquarters are situated in Delhi would not confer and give jurisdiction to this High Court.

¶10

The petitioner has submitted that he has been able to ascertain and get certain further information under the Right to Information Act after the order dated 13.10.2015. The said information also relates to the recruitment process at Bangalore.

¶11

In view of the decision of Five-Judge Bench in M/ s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. , AIR 2011 Del 174: (2011) 181 DLT 658(DB), we would not like to entertain the present writ petition as the entire cause of action has arisen in Bangalore. Impugned order by the Tribunal in Delhi would not, in the factual matrix and the stand of the respondent, matter. The petitioner, if aggrieved, may approach the

¶12

jurisdictional High Court.

¶13

Recording the above, the writ petition is not entertained on the ground

¶14

of lack of jurisdiction. CM No.45122/2016 also stands disposed of.

¶15

SANJIV KHANNA, J

¶16

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J

¶17

DECEMBER 07, 2016 tp

Manoj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Public Service Commission Vs Patil Bhushan Manohar & Ors.

Shobha Kaur Vs Central Bank of India & Anr.

Ravindra Singh Mann Vs Union of India & Ors.

Green Fields Public School Vs Mahinder Kumar

UOI & Anr. Vs the Defence Marine Engg. Tech. S

M/S Delhi Tourist Bus Service Vs Dayal Singh

Subhash Chand Dhigan Vs Delhi Development Authority

Shashi Bala Pathak Vs Delhi Development Authority

Union Public Service Commission Vs Patil Bhushan Manohar & Ors.

Mukund L Abhyankar Vs Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare and Ors.

C.M. Chandolia Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Km. Divya Goswami

Akhil Choudhary Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

UOI and Anr. Vs Dileep Kumar Saxena