HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1268 of 2006 (S/S) Smt. Chandra Prabha Devi W/o Sri Ram Lakhan Sharma … Petitioner Versus The State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents Dated:- 17th February, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri B. D. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. P. Joshi, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Smt. Beena Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint her on the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (hereinafter referred to as ‘A.N.M.’) and pay her salasry and all consequential benefits of service as per law. Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the Director General of Rashtriya Karyakaram Anushraran Mulyankan Parivar Kalyan Uttar Pradesh, respondent no.4, issued an advertisement on 19th September, 1998 for filling up 2036 posts of Health Worker. Based on the said advertisement, the petitioner applied, and it is alleged, that a select list was released, in which the petitioner’s name was found at the top of the list. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, it is alleged that she was selected in the hill cadre in the general category of female. Pursuant to the selection list, the petitioner was required to be given a formal appointment-cum- posting letter but that never occurred and, subsequently, the State of Uttarakhand was created on 09th November, 2000. Since then, the petitioner has been making various representations to the Government of U.P. as well as to the Government of Uttarakhand for an appointment as A.N.M. in the hill area of Uttarakhand or in any place in Uttar Pradesh. Eventually, when nothing happened, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in the year 2003. The State Government of Uttarakhand has filed a counter affidavit contending that the advertisement was issued by the State of U.P. and the selection process was also completed by the said Government and therefore, the responsibility, if any, for non- compliance of the select list was with the State Government of U.P. and no liability or responsibility could be fastened upon the State of Uttarakhand. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh has also been arrayed as a party and, inspite of time being granted, no counter affidavit has been filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no cause of action or part of cause of action arose in the State of Uttarakhand and further finds that no cause of action 2 arose for this Court to interfere in this matter and to issue a writ of mandamus to the competent authority. Admittedly, the State of Uttarakhand is not responsible and cannot be fastened with any liability. The fault, if any lies with the State Government of U.P. for not issuing a letter of appointment to the petitioner. The court finds that no cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen in the State of Uttarakhand and, since the State Government of U.P. is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, consequently, this court cannot exercise its powers under Article 226 sub-clause (2) of the Constitution of India to issue any kind of a writ to an authority, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In view of the aforesaid, no direction can be issued to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 17.02.2010 LSR