HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 410 of 2009 (S/S) SI (Ex) Deep Joshi. … Petitioner. Versus Union of India and three others. … Respondents Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner, Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for Union of India, Mr. L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Joshi, holding brief of Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.4. Dated: June 19, 2009: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order/letter dated 17.04.2009 by which resignation of the petitioner was rejected. 2. Brief facts relating to the case are that the petitioner was enrolled in Central Industrial Security Force (in short C.I.S.F) in the rank of Sub-Inspector in the Executive Branch. At the time of joining, the petitioner signed an agreement in accordance with Rule 21 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. One of the conditions of the agreement was that in the event of tendering resignation from the force other than accepting a job elsewhere for which a clearance has been given during the period of ten years from the date of joining C.I.S.F. the petitioner was required to refund all the cost of training imparted to him in the force or sum equal to three month’s pay and allowances which ever is more. Thus, an enrolled person, before completion of ten years of service in the Force, can be allowed to leave the Force 2 without any encumbrance, if clearance is given to him to accept another job. 3. On March 11, 2008 Oil & Natural Gas Commission (the respondent no. 4) issued an advertisement in which there were 14 vacancies in the rank of Security Officers. Since the posts advertised were higher in rank and petitioner was fulfilling required qualification, he applied for the same with prior written intimation to respondent no.3 vide letter dated 31.03.2008 alongwith a prayer for issuing experience certificate. In response to the petitioner’s application dated 31.03.2008, the respondent no. 3 issued an experience certificate to him which the petitioner annexed alongwith his application form. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the written test held by respondent no.4 on 28.09.2008. The petitioner qualified the written test and was asked by respondent no.4 vide letter dated 19.01.2009 to participate in the interview scheduled to be held at ONGC Guest House, Dehradun on 06.02.2009. The petitioner reported for interview on due date alongwith the No Objection Certificate dated 31.01.2009 issued by respondent no.3. Thereafter vide letter dated 12.03.2009 the respondent no.4 informed the petitioner that he had been selected for the post of Security Officer and he was required to intimate respondent no.4 if the said offer was acceptable to him. The petitioner was further asked to report for his duties within 45 days from the date of receipt of the letter. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was again asked for submission of fresh N.O.C. In reply to the said offer the petitioner submitted a letter of acceptance to respondent no.4 alongwith N.O.C. dated 23.03.2009. On 25.03.2009, the petitioner submitted his technical resignation in order 3 to be able to join the post of Security Officer under respondent no. 4 for which all necessary formalities had already been done by him but on 17.04.2009 the respondent no.3 informed the petitioner that his technical resignation has been turned down. No reason was disclosed for refusal of prayer of the petitioner for resignation. Thereafter, the petitioner sought extension from respondent no.4 which was granted to him. Aggrieved with the order dated 17.04.2009, present writ petition has been filed before this Court mainly on the ground of discrimination as according to the petitioner, the respondent no.3 in the recent past accepted technical resignation of other persons, namely, SI Santosh Kumar, SI Lalit Kandulna, SI Amit Ghyldiyal, SI Pradeep Kumar Mishra and SI Gautam Chosh whereas in the identical circumstances technical resignation of the petitioner was rejected. According to the petitioner the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. Another ground taken by the petitioner is that once the NOC had been given by the competent authority to the petitioner for participating in the selection process for the post of Security Officer in the ONGC, the authority was under legal obligation to accept technical resignation, tendered by the petitioner on his being selected for the said post of Security Officer in the ONGC. 4. I have heard Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner, Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Joshi, holding brief of Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.4 and perused the record. 4 5. Mr. L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no.4 as well as Smt. Anjali Bhargava, counsel for respondent nos. 1,2 & 3 took preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the writ petition. They argued that since petitioner is posted at Mumbai and main relief sought by him is against respondent nos. 1,2 & 3 who are at Delhi and Mumbai, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 6. Mr. Lalit Kumar, Advocate for petitioner submitted before the Court that this High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to hear this petition as part of cause of action arose within the State of Uttarakhand. According to him the petitioner applied for the post of Security Officer; called for interview within the State of Uttarakhand and he was selected by respondent no.4 within the State of Uttarakhand. Thus, this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. According to him since subsequent developments also took place within the State of Uttarakhand and respondent no.4 is also a contesting party as appointment on the post of Security Officer has to be given by respondent no.4, present writ petition has rightly been filed before this Court and it should be entertained. In support of his argument he referred Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India. He further argued that even place of respondent nos. 1,2 & 3 or the present place of posting of petitioner do not fall within State of Uttarakhand, this Court is competent to hear the writ petition. Mr. Lalit Kumar cited the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court reported in 2004 (6) S.C.C. 254 and argued that even if a small fraction of 5 cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter. 7. In the present case the petitioner is working under respondents 1,2 & 3. His resignation was rejected by respondent no.3 vide order dated 17.04.2009. This order was issued by respondent no.3 i.e. Senior Commandant C.I.S.F. Unit, Mumbai. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order which has been passed at Mumbai. Main reliefs sought by the petitioner are also against the respondent no.3 who is based at Mumbai. The petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by any action of respondent no.4 (O.N.G.C., Dehradun) as petitioner cannot be given appointment on the post of Security Officer by respondent no.4 until his resignation is accepted by respondent no.3 and he is relieved by respondent no.3. Cause of action against respondent no.4 will arise only when petitioner’s resignation is accepted by respondent no.3 and petitioner is relieved. In view of these facts it is clear that no part of cause of action has accrued in the State of Uttarakhand and this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the writ petition. Case law cited by the counsel for the petitioner does not help him as in present case, it has been held by this Court that no part of cause of action has accrued in the State of Uttarakhand. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) 19.06.2009 NCM: 6