Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarun Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 2 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044013
2024:PHHC:044013
CWP-11005-2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
217 CWP-11005-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.04.2024
Tarun Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Richa Sharma, Advocate
for Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of result of selected
candidates for the post of Probationary Engineers (Electronic).
2. The respondent advertized 66 posts of Probationary Engineers.
The petitioner applied for the post and he appeared in the written test. He
secured 51.85 out of 85 marks. He appeared in the interview, however, was
not selected.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, submits that
this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and a
Coordinate Bench of this Court has already dismissed CWP No.18134 of 2017
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044013
2024:PHHC:044013
CWP-11005-2018 (O&M) -2-
vide order dated 22.03.2022. The said petition was also related to the
advertisement in question.
4. On being confronted with the aforesaid order, learned counsel for
the petitioner could not distinguish facts of present case from the facts of
CWP No.18134 of 2017.
5. This Court vide order dated 22.03.2022 has dismissed identical
petition. The operative part of the said judgment reads as:
"At the outset, counsel for the respondents has
submitted that regarding the same examination, as involved in
the present petition, the Rajasthan High Court and Calcutta
High Court have held that they did not have the territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the petitions because no part of the
process of selection had taken place in their respective
jurisdictions. The same is applicable to the present case as
well. It is submitted that the posts were advertised by Bharat
Electronics Limited, Bengaluru. The written test for the same
was conducted at New Delhi and the interview was conducted
at Ghaziabad. Therefore, no part of the process had taken
place within the jurisdiction of this Court as well. Accordingly,
it is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable for lack
of territorial jurisdiction.
This Court finds substance in the argument of counsel
for the respondents. Since no part of cause of action has arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court, therefore,
this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere in the
matter. Hence, the petition is dismissed as not entertained.
However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail his
alternate remedy before an appropriate Court having
territorial jurisdiction over the aspect."
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044013
2024:PHHC:044013
CWP-11005-2018 (O&M) -3-
6. In the wake of order dated 22.03.2024 passed by Coordinate
Bench of this Court in CWP No.18134 of 2017, the present petition stands
disposed of in the same terms.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
02.04.2024
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044013
2024:PHHC:044013
CWP-11005-2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
217 CWP-11005-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.04.2024
Tarun Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Richa Sharma, Advocate
for Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of result of selected
candidates for the post of Probationary Engineers (Electronic).
2. The respondent advertized 66 posts of Probationary Engineers.
The petitioner applied for the post and he appeared in the written test. He
secured 51.85 out of 85 marks. He appeared in the interview, however, was
not selected.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, submits that
this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and a
Coordinate Bench of this Court has already dismissed CWP No.18134 of 2017
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044013
2024:PHHC:044013
CWP-11005-2018 (O&M) -2-
vide order dated 22.03.2022. The said petition was also related to the
advertisement in question.
4. On being confronted with the aforesaid order, learned counsel for
the petitioner could not distinguish facts of present case from the facts of
CWP No.18134 of 2017.
5. This Court vide order dated 22.03.2022 has dismissed identical
petition. The operative part of the said judgment reads as:
"At the outset, counsel for the respondents has
submitted that regarding the same examination, as involved in
the present petition, the Rajasthan High Court and Calcutta
High Court have held that they did not have the territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the petitions because no part of the
process of selection had taken place in their respective
jurisdictions. The same is applicable to the present case as
well. It is submitted that the posts were advertised by Bharat
Electronics Limited, Bengaluru. The written test for the same
was conducted at New Delhi and the interview was conducted
at Ghaziabad. Therefore, no part of the process had taken
place within the jurisdiction of this Court as well. Accordingly,
it is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable for lack
of territorial jurisdiction.
This Court finds substance in the argument of counsel
for the respondents. Since no part of cause of action has arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court, therefore,
this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere in the
matter. Hence, the petition is dismissed as not entertained.
However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail his
alternate remedy before an appropriate Court having
territorial jurisdiction over the aspect."
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044013
2024:PHHC:044013
CWP-11005-2018 (O&M) -3-
6. In the wake of order dated 22.03.2024 passed by Coordinate
Bench of this Court in CWP No.18134 of 2017, the present petition stands
disposed of in the same terms.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
02.04.2024
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
