Yogendra Das Bihangam vs The Union of India (UOI) and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has questioned the legal substantiality of the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short, ''the tribunal'') in O.A. No. 141 of 2009, whereby the tribunal after considering the facts in issue has expressed the view that cause of action does not arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Bihar inasmuch as the Petitioner received a communication with regard to non-selection which was sent from the State of Rajasthan. The tribunal has placed reliance upon the decision rendered in the case of K. Balajee v. G.M., Integral Coach Factory, Chennai 2004 (2) ATJ 136, a decision rendered by the High Court of Karnataka to substantiate its view.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has commended us to the decision in Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, whereas learned Counsel for the railways has invited our attention to the decision in Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs. The Union of India and Others,

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and upon bestowing our anxious consideration on the controversy in issue and on perusal of the dictum of the Apex Court Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the law laid down in Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra) does not apply to the case at hand. We are disposed to think that the decision rendered in Mithilesh Kumar Singh (supra) has precious deal with the territorial jurisdictional facet and the said decision applies on all fours to the case on hand and, accordingly, we do not perceive any error in the order passed, by the tribunal.

Hence, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.