Jharkhand High Court
Vishal Kumar vs Union Bank Of India Through Its ... on 9 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 6256 of 2017
----------
Vishal Kumar .......... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Bank of India through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Mumbai.
2. General Manager (Human Resources Deptt.), Union Bank of India,
Mumbai.
3. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, IPBS-CRP SPL-VI-
CWESPL-VI Recruitment of Specialist Officers 2017-18, IBPS
House, 90 Feet D.P. Road, near Thakur Polytechnic, Off Wester
Express Highway, P.B. No. 858, Kandivali (E), P.O & P.S.
Mumbai, Mumbai.
4. Asstt. General Manager (HR), Union Bank of India, HR
Department, Manpower Planning and Recruitment Division,
Central Office, Mumbai
.......... Respondents.
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
----------
11/ 09.08.2023 Heard the parties.
2. At the very outset, the point of maintainability has been raised by the
the respondent-Bank. It has been submitted that the writ petition itself is not
maintainable in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Countering the same, Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition is maintainable in
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It has been argued that
advertisement itself speaks regarding conducting of interview in the
different States and Union Territory of India and also the Clause of Transfer
shows that employee can be transferred to anywhere in India. Further, it has
been argued that since examination was held at Jamshedpur and interview
was conducted at Patna, it was open for the petitioner to file writ petition
either at Bihar or at Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the petitioner tries to
impress upon for taking sympathetic view that since petitioner is
unemployed, he may be permitted to move this writ petition. Learned
counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, reported in
(2022) 3 SCC 133, relevant para of which reads as under:
23. In Kusum Ingots case [Kusum Ingots & Alloys
Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254], the question
involved was "whether the seat of Parliament would be a
relevant factor for determining the territorial jurisdiction of a
High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India when the constitutionality of a
parliamentary Act is under challenge". After referring to the
expression "cause of action" for territorial jurisdiction to
entertain a writ petition, in terms of Article 226(2) of the
Constitution, this Court held thus : (SCC p. 261, paras 18-21)
"18. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a
nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those
facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein
cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would
confer jurisdiction on the Court.
19. Passing of a legislation by itself in our opinion does
not confer any such right to file a writ petition unless a
cause of action arises therefor.
20. A distinction between a legislation and executive
action should be borne in mind while determining the said
question.
21. A parliamentary legislation when it receives the
assent of the President of India and is published in the
Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded, will apply to
the entire territory of India. If passing of a legislation gives
rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning the
constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of
the country. It is not so done because a cause of action will
arise only when the provisions of the Act or some of them
which were implemented shall give rise to civil or evil
consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well
settled, would not determine a constitutional question in a
vacuum."
4. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court since the cause of action did not arose, at any
moment, at Jharkhand. It has been brought to the notice that the joining of
the petitioner was refused at Pune and letter to that effect was issued by
Mumbai office of respondent-Bank. Further none of the respondents are
residing in Jharkhand. Petitioner is seeking appointment in Pune Branch of
respondent-Bank which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of
Maharashtra and as such, this writ petition is not maintainable before this
Court.
5. From the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this
Court is of the considered view that instant writ petition is not maintainable.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan
Banerjee, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 456 has held as under:
"7. "Cause of action", for the purpose of Article 226(2)
of the Constitution of India, for all intent and purport,
must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under
Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It means a
bundle of facts which are required to be proved. The
entire bundle of facts pleaded, however, need not
constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be
proved is material facts whereupon a writ petition can
be allowed."
6. From the aforesaid legal proposition and from going through Section
20(c) of Civil Procedure Code, it is very much clear that cause of action is
not within the State of Jharkhand and as such, the writ petition is not
maintainable before this Court and the case laws relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him.
7. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby
dismissed.
8. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to file writ petition in
the territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal/-
