HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29981 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was working as Head Constable in C.I.S.F. He took voluntary retirement. His request for retiring on voluntary basis was accepted with effect from 1.8.2009 and was relieved on that day. He was with the C.I.S.F., C.C.L., Kargali, Bokaro District, Jharkand State when he retired. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare the action of the respondent in not granting up-gradation as per Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme, dated 19.5.2009 on completion of 20 years of service as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The only respondent in the writ petition is from the State of Jharkand. This Court has no territorial jurisdiction to issue a Writ against the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in OM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER ([1]). In para-7 of the judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court summed up the principle in relation to assumption of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under: “The question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the Court’s jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing him actual injury or threat thereof. It has already been pointed out that there is only one respondent in the writ petition and he is from the State of Jharkhand. The possibility to entertain the writ petition would have existed if only the rights of the petitioner were prima facie infringed or threatened by respondent within the territorial limits of this Court’s jurisdiction. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It shall be open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies in the proper forum. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J DATE: 10th December, 2010 pnb [1] (2006) 6 SCC 207