Shubham Sharma v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13397 of 2014 ====================================================== Shubham Sharma, Son of Parmanand Prasad, Resident of Village- Sargawn, P.O.- Dahpar, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda, Bihar ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, Central Secretariat, New Delhi

2. Department of Personnel Training through its Secretary, Government of India, Central Secretariat, New Delhi

3. Staff Selection Commission, through the Under Secretary, C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi

4. Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Eastern Region, 8th Floor, 1st M.S.O. Building, Nizam Palace, 234/4, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata700020 ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Anjani Kumar Sharan, Asst. S.G.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India.

In this case, the petitioner is claiming that he has wrongly been refused to be appointed as G.D. Constable against the advertisement dated 15.12.2012.

Learned counsel for the Union of India has raised preliminary objection that this petition is not maintainable as every cause of action and part thereof in the shape of issuance of advertisement, holding the examination and physical test, all

Patna High Court CWJC No.13397 of 2014(2) dt.12-12-2018 2/2 were conducted in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand, mere residence of a person in this State will not create any cause of action or part thereof, placing reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. The Union of India and Ors. reported in 2016 (3) PLJR 870. Having considered the argument of both the side, learned counsel for the Union of India is correct that mere residence of a person does not create any cause of action or part thereof. This Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition as all cause of action or part thereof has taken place in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all issues before the competent Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U