Raj Kumar Swami & ORS. v. Staff Selection Commission & ANR.
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9081/2014 & CM No. 4522/2015(for directions) RAJ KUMAR SWAMI & ORS.
..... Petitioners Through:
Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate.
versus STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ANR.
..... Respondents Through:
Ms. Monika Arora, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Manoj, standing counsel for FCI with Ms. Aparna Sinha and Mr.
M.T.Reddy, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
O R D E R
% 19.12.2016 1.
On 28.11.2016, the following order was passed:- "1.
Prima facie, this Court does not seem to have territorial jurisdiction because it is not stated as to whether petitioners gave exams in Delhi or their interviews are conducted at Delhi or how there is territorial jurisdiction of Delhi qua the petitioners who are residing in different parts of India such as Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Sikkim etc.
2.
Counsel for the petitioners wants to take instruction. 3.
List on 19th December, 2016."
2.
The aforesaid order was passed inasmuch as this writ petition was filed by 12 petitioners none of whom reside in Delhi as per the memo of W.P.(C) 9081/2014
parties.
By the writ petition, the petitioners have sought the relief of quashing of the result dated 5.3.2014 to the post of Assistant Grade-III (Technical) in the Food Corporation of India and also for the further relief of the petitioners being granted the appointment. 3.
It is seen that so far as petitioners are concerned no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. Counsel for the petitioners has taken instructions pursuant to the last order dated 28.11.2016 and it is stated that none of the petitioners sat for their exams at Delhi but have sat for examination at different centres outside Delhi.
The only step in the recruitment process was holding of written examination and which qua petitioners did not take place at Delhi.
Therefore, whole or part of cause of action so far as petitioners are concerned has not arisen in Delhi. 4.
In view of the above, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J DECEMBER 19, 2016 ib W.P.(C) 9081/2014