Madras High Court
A.Saroja … vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 August, 2022
W.P. No. 42374 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 42374 of 2016
A.Saroja … Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Madras – 9,
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Nagercoil District,
Nagercoil.
4. The Correspondent,
Dathie Nursery School,
Nagercoil. ...
Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the First Respondent to
allow regular pay scale in the post of Ayah held by the Petitioner, in the Fourth
Respondent School, from the date of her original appointment i.e. 12.08.1998
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P. No. 42374 of 2016
and the pay scale of selection grade in the said post, from the date she became
eligible for selection grade scale of pay, in the Fourth Respondent School and
other consequential benefits in the light of the judgment of the High Court of
Madras in W.P. No. 221 of 1991 etc., (S.Pappa nad Ors. Vs. Government of
Tamil Nadu and ors) dated 30.07.1999.
For Petitioner : Mrs. R.Suchitra for Mr. V.S.Jagadeesan
For Respondent : Mr. P.Balathandayutham,
Special Government Pleader
(for R1 to R3)
No appearance (for R4)
ORDER
Heard Mrs. R.Suchitra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr. P.Balathandayutham, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the First to Third Respondents and perused the materials placed on record,
apart from the pleadings of the parties.
2. The Writ Petition has been filed for directing the First Respondent to
allow regular pay scale in the post of Ayah held by the Petitioner in the school
of the Fourth Respondent from 12.08.1998 when she was originally appointed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 42374 of 2016
and grant selection grade and fix her scale of pay when she became eligible for
it and other consequential benefits in the light of the decision of this Court in
S.Pappa -vs- Government of Tamil Nadu (Order dated 30.07.1999 in W.P.
No. 221 of 1991 etc., batch).
3. It is not in dispute that neither the school of the Fourth Respondent,
where the Petitioner had worked nor the office of the Third Respondent are
situated within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat at
Chennai of this Court. Though the offices of the First and Second Respondents
are situated at Chennai within the jurisdictional limit of Principal Seat of this
Court, there cannot be any doubt that the First and Second Respondents
exercise powers for the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu, but that cannot be
said to mean as if part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial
limits of jurisdiction of the Principal Seat of this Court at Chennai.
4. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in C.Ramesh -vs- Director General of Police, Chennai
(Order dated 06.06.2013 in W.P. (MD) No. 8790 of 2013), in which it has been
held as follows:-
"7. Exercise of jurisdiction is based on arising of the cause of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 42374 of 2016
action, either in whole or in part in any one of the said Revenue
Districts. [See RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES'
ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTEHRS (2001 (2)
SCC 294) and B.STALIN Vs. THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2012 (3) LW 489 (FB))].
8. It should be remembered that the part of cause of action
must be substantial in nature. The territorial jurisdiction of the
Court is linked with the place of accrual of cause of action. [See
U.P. RASHTRIYA CHINI MILL ADHIKARI PARISHAD,
LUCKNOW Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS (1995 (4) SCC
738)].
9. Referring to KUSUM INGOTS & ALLOYS LTD. Vs. UNION
OF INDIA (2004 (3) CTC 365), a Full Bench of this Court in
SANJOS JEWELLERS Vs. SYNDICATE BANK, BANGALORE
AND OTHERS (2007 (5) CTC 305), held as under:- "30. We
must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of
cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 42374 of 2016
High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a
determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the
matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the Doctrine of
forum conveniens. [See BHAGAT SINGH BUGGA Vs. DEWAN
JAGBIR SAWHNEY, AIR 1941 CAL 670 : ILR (1941) 1 CAL 490;
MADANLAL JALAN Vs. MADANLAL, 1945 (49) CWN 357: AIR
1949 CAL 495; BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. Vs. JHARIA
TALKIES & COLD STORAGE (P) LTD., 1997 CWN 122;
S.S.JAIN & CO. Vs. UNION OF INDIA, 1994 (1) CHN 445, and
NEW HORIZONS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1994 DEL
126].
10. Question of entertaining a lis disclosing a cause of action
or part of cause of action is based on the averments contained in
the affidavit etc. At that stage, the truth or otherwise of the
averments need not be gone into. But, there must be necessary
averments disclosing a cause of action, so that the Court can
take cognizance of/entertaining the lis exposed in the petition for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 42374 of 2016
taking further action. [See OIL AND NATURAL GAS
COMMISSION Vs. UTPAL KUMAR BASU AND OTHERS (1994
(4) SCC 711)].
11. A Court cannot arrogate/assume/confer upon itself a
jurisdiction- territorial jurisdiction, when it has no such
jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction to entertain a matter goes to the
root of the matter, otherwise whatever action taken or orders
passed by the Court becomes a nullity, it is non est and of no
consequence at all resulting in wasting of precious public time.
Courts are barred from indulging in hypothetic and academic
exercises."
Having regard to the aforesaid legal position viz-a-viz factual matrix of this
case, the cause of action for the Writ Petition, would have to be necessarily
construed as having arisen wholly outside the territorial limits of jurisdiction of
the Principal Bench of this Court, notwithstanding that the offices of the First
and Second Respondents are located in Chennai.
5. When it is pointed out that the Writ Petition cannot be entertained in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 42374 of 2016
Principal Seat of this Court in that backdrop, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
seeks permission of the Court to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to file
fresh Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court and she has made an
endorsement to that effect in the court record.
In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn granting such liberty.
No costs.
02.08.2022
skr
Index: Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy by 16.08.2022.
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Madras – 9,
2. The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Nagercoil District,
Nagercoil.
4. The Correspondent,
Dathie Nursery School,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 42374 of 2016
Nagercoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No. 42374 of 2016
P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J.
skr
W.P. No. 42374 of 2016
02.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
