Bombay High Court
Sushrut Ashokrao Onkar vs Food Corporation Of India, Thr. ... on 12 January, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Anuja Prabhudessai
24wp196.2021.odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.196 OF 2021
Sushrut Ashokrao Onkar,
Aged about 26 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Gotewadi, Near New Railway Quarter
Vikram Sheela Nagar Road Wardha. ...Petitioner.
VERSUS
1) Food Corporation of India,
through is DGM, Food Corporation
of India, Regional Office, Chandigarh.
2) Central Board of Secondary Education,
through its Regional Officer,
J block, 16th Main Road, Anna
Nagar West, Chennai-600040. ...Respondents.
Mr. Akshaya Sudame, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. P.S. Chavhan, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ
DATE : 12th JANUARY, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER: ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally
by the consent of the counsel for the respective parties.
24wp196.2021.odt
2. The Petitioner has sought direction to the Respondents to
allow him to join duty pursuant to an offer of appointment on the
strength of his certificate.
3. The Respondent No.1, vide Advertisement No.1/2019 dated
23.02.2019 invited applications for various posts under its Depots as
well as Offices spread all over the country. Pursuant to the said
advertisement, the Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Grade III
(Depot), reserved for Scheduled Caste category candidates from North
Zone.
4. In response, the Respondent No.1 issued a call letter to the
Petitioner for online recruitment examination. The Petitioner
successfully passed online examination conducted on 31.05.2019 at
Nagpur and 27.07.2019 at Mumbai and accordingly, the Respondent
No.1 issued a call letter dated 27.02.2020 for document verification.
The Respondent No.1 thereafter published a list of selected candidates,
wherein, the name of the Petitioner was shown at Serial No.700.
5. The Petitioner accepted the offer of appointment issued on
18.09.2020 and he was required to report for duty to Divisional
Manager, Moga at Food Corporation of India, Divisional Officer, FCI
Road, Moga on or before 18.10.2020. When the Petitioner reported for
duty on 12.10.2020, he was orally informed that his surname was not
recorded in the 10th standard marksheet. He was therefore, not allowed
24wp196.2021.odt
to join the duty. Pursuant to the request letter dated 16.10.2020, the
Respondent No.1 granted permission to the Petitioner to furnish
corrected documents within a period of 3 months and extended the date
of joining till 18.01.2021.
6. The Petitioner applied to the Respondent No.2 to add his
surname in his 10th standard marksheet and to issue corrected certificate
at the earliest. He was orally informed by the Respondent No.2 that the
process was time consuming and it would take at least 4 to 5 months to
issue corrected certificate.
7. The Petitioner sent representation dated 15.12.2020 to the
Executive Director, North Zone of the Food Corporation of India,
explaining the circumstances under which the name of the Petitioner
appearing as on the SSC marksheet is corrected to permit him to join
services on the basis of the said certificate. The Petitioner did not
receive any response on the said representation. Despite being selected,
the Petitioner was not allowed to join duty for the reasons beyond his
control and for which he was not responsible. It is under these
circumstances, the Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
during the pendency of this petition, the Central Board of Secondary
Education has issued the corrected certificate. He has placed on record
24wp196.2021.odt
the corrected certificate, wherein the surname of the Petitioner has been
incorporated.
9. Shri Chavhan, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2
confirms that the said certificate has been issued by the Central Board of
Secondary Education.
10. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1
has opposed the petition, mainly on the ground of jurisdiction. He
contends that the regional office of the Respondent No.1 is at
Chandigarh. The Petitioner was to join the duty at Moga, Chandigarh
and the entire cause of action had arisen at Moga, Chandigarh. He
therefore contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this
petition.
11. In this regard, Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the Petitioner
has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India, in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and
others, reported in (2014) 9 Supreme Court Cases 329. Upon
considering the amended provision of Article 226 (2) of the
Constitution, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:
"9...
On a plain reading of the amended provisions in Clause (2), it is clear
that now High Court can issue a writ when the person or the
authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its
territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises
within the court's territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action for the
24wp196.2021.odt
purpose of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution, for all intent and
purpose must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under
Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression cause of
action has not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or
the Constitution. Cause of action is bundle of facts which is necessary
for the plaintiff to prove in the suit before he can succeed. The term
'cause of action' as appearing in Clause (2) came up for consideration
time and again before this Court."
12. Undisputedly, the Petitioner is the resident of Wardha,
Nagpur. He had applied for the post of Assistant Grade III (Depot) via
email from his home town. Phase-I examination had been held at
Nagpur. The offer of appointment was given to the Petitioner at his
address at Wardha, Nagpur and further time to join the services was
extended by communication dated 22.10.2020, which was served on
the Petitioner at Wardha. Thus, the cause of action has partially arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, this Court
has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Consequently, we are unable
to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1
that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.
13. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has been selected to the
Post of Assistant Grande III (Depot) and he has accepted the offer to the
said post. He has not been allowed to join the duty on a sole ground
that the 10th standard marksheet does not reflect his surname. He was
given 3 months time to submit the corrected marksheet and to join the
duty on or before 18.01.2021. By order dated 11.01.2021, this Court
had extended the time given to the Petitioner to report to the post in
24wp196.2021.odt
question. Further order dated 08.02.2021, this Court had extended the
time until further orders.
14. During the pendency of the extended period, the Petitioner
has obtained the corrected copy of the marksheet. Error if any, has been
set right. The Petitioner therefore, cannot be deprived of his means of
livelihood.
15. In the circumstances, the Petitioner is permitted to produce
the corrected copy of the certificate (10 th standard marksheet) before the
Respondent No.1 within a period of 15 days from the date of this order.
Submission of such certificate within a period of 15 days shall be held to
be in compliance with the directions contained in the communication
dated 22.10.2020. Upon verification of the certificate, the Respondent
No.1 shall allow the Petitioner to join his duty. The process of
verification shall be completed within two weeks from submission of the
certificate.
16. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Rule
accordingly. No order as to costs.
(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J)
nd.thawre
Digitally signed byNIRANJAN
DOMAJI THAWRE
Signing Date:14.01.2022
10:52
