W.P.(C).No. 1740 of 2012 (Mahesh M. et al. v. Union of India & Others)

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 1740 of 2012** **-----------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)** **------------1 MAHESH M, EX-GS-196255K,AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN, RESIDING AT MUKESH BHAVANAM, ERICKAVU P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690516. 2 SHIBU S, EX-GS 196316-W, AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.LATE SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT THUNDIL THARAYIL ADINAD SOUTH, P.O.KATTILKADAVIL,KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3 RENJITH.R, EX-GS-196259-A 24 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT BLAHAYIL HOUSE, POTHAPPALLY NORTH, P.O.KUMARAPURAM, KARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA. 4 ASISH G, EX-GS-196315-N,22 YEARS, S/O.GOPI, RESIDING AT ASISH BHAVANAM, MUTHUKULAM P.O., MUTHUKULAM SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA. 5 VISHAK VIJAYAN, EX-GS-196222-Y,22 YEARS, S/O.K.VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT SIVASAKTHI HOUSE, NIRANAM, KADAPPRA P.O., THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA. 6 ANOOP SATHYAN, EX-GS-196254-F,23 YEARS, S/O.SATHYAN, RESIDING AT ANUSHA BHAVANAM, EDAKULANGARA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. 7 DEEPUKUMAR.D, EX-GS-196350-W,23 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEETTIL VADAKKATHIL HOUSE, CHATHIYARA P.O., THAMARAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.MINI.V.A. SMT.SABINA JAYAN SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4TH FLOOR, B WING SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110 011.** ## **WP(C).No. 1740 of 2012** **----------------------** ## **2. THE SECRETARY,** **BRDB, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, 4TH FLOOR, B WING SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110 011.** **3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BOARDER ROADS, SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN, RING ROAD, DELHI CANTT, NEW DELHI-110 010** ## **4. THE COMMANDER,** **HQ-16 BRTF (GRFF) C/O.56 APO.** **5. THE COMMANDER, HQ-753 BRTF (GRFF) C/O.56 APO.** **6. THE COMMANDER, HQ-762 BRTF (GRFF) C/O.56 APO.** **7. THE COMMANDER, GRFF CENTRE, DIGHI CAMP, PUNE-15.** **8. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110 011.** **BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **K.V.** **WP(C).No. 1740 of 2012 ----------------------** **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** **---------------------** - **P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.4.2011 FROM THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.10.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.11.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P4; TRUE COPY OF THE FAX MASSAGE DATED 29.11 2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **P5: TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER DATED 30.11.2011 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **P5A TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER DATED 9.12.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **P5B: TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER DATED 30.11.2011 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **P5C: TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER DATED 7.12.2011 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **P5D: TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER DATED 7.12.2011 ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **P5E: TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER DATED 7.12.2011 ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **P5F: TRE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER DATED 30.11.2011 ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** **---------------------** - **R1(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD DATED 27.6.2011.** - **R1(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI DATED 21.2.2012.** - **R1(C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 11.2.2012.** - **R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD DATED 17.10.2011 AND 18.11.2011.** - **R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD DATED 14.8.1985.** **/TRUE COPY/** **K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 7.03.2018** ## **P.V.ASHA J.** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C).No.1740 of 2012** **-------------------------------------** Dated this the 21[st] day of February, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners who were working as Vehicle Mechanics in General Reserve Engineer Force (for short 'GREF') in Pune has filed this writ petition challenging the termination of their services. 2. Petitioners were appointed as vehicle mechanics in GREF after they were found successful in a process of selection after appearing in an interview conducted in Pune. 3. Petitioners have produced Ext.P1 letter dated 09.05.2011 by which they were directed to attend for a medical examination in Pune. They completed four months' training in Pune, as an integral part of induction to GREF and after completion of their 2 W.P.(C).No.1740 of 2012N training, they were posted in various units. 4. While continuing so, Ext.P2 order was issued under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules terminating the services of the petitioners by giving one month's pay in lieu of notice. It was stated in Ext.P2 order dated 17.10.2011, that an enquiry was conducted into the complaints regarding the malpractices involved in the selection for recruitment to the post of MT Drivers, Electricians and Vehicle Mechanics in Border Roads Organisation and it was found that the recruitment was not transparent or fair and a number of irregularities have been committed by the Recruitment Boards/Centres and GREF Centre and thus the entire selection was vitiated. 5. Movement orders were issued to petitioners along with orders of termination Ext.P2 and fax message Ext.P4. Along with the orders of termination like Ext.P2, railway warrants were issued to them to execute journey to their home town. The petitioners W.P.(C).No.1740 of 2012N 3 who completed about 6 months of service before suspension, were thus terminated from service. 6. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating the circumstances leading to termination, while raising the question of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain this writ petition. 7. Along with the counter affidavit respondents produced Ext.R1(b) judgment in Writ Petition No.1007/2012 filed before Delhi High Court challenging termination of service under identical circumstances on the basis of Ext.P2 letter. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. Ext.R1(c) is another judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court by which the writ petition filed by similarly situated persons were dismissed for want of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, observing that none of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that 4 W.P.(C).No.1740 of 2012N Court. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the writ petition will lie before this Court since the petitioners were served with the orders of termination and the orders were passed by the Commandar, HQ 762 BRTF(GREF), C/o 56 APO and the petitioners can not approach any court since the place from which the orders issued is not stated. It is also pointed out that since petitioners had to leave the place of their respective postings on account of movement orders issued, they can file the writ petition only in this Court. 9. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, on the other hand argued that this Court does not have any jurisdiction to re-instate the petitioners since none of the proceedings for selection of the petitioners against which the irregularities were found leading to the termination arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. The test 5 W.P.(C).No.1740 of 2012N leading to appointment of the petitioners as well as their termination took place in Pune and in other places and no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, identical case relating to the very same issue was considered by the High Courts of Mumbai as well as Chennai and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is also pointed out that the Mumbai High Court has considered the case on merits and dismissed the writ petitions challenging termination. 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned ASGI, the issue arising in this case is covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in _**Indian Maritime University v. Viswanathan**_ **[2014 (4) KLT 798]** . In the light of that judgment, this Court does not have any jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment of the Apex Court, _**Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and Others**_ **[2014 (9) SCC 329],** relied 6 W.P.(C).No.1740 of 2012N on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was rendered taking note of the peculiar circumstances which arose in that case, and the Apex Court found that part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. Apart from that an interim order was passed by the High Court directing partial payment to the petitioner therein. The respondents had not raised any objection as to jurisdiction; instead the orders were complied with. That judgment is not applicable in this case, as held in _**Indian Maritime University**_ 's case. 11. I have already considered a similar issue in my judgment in W.P.(C).No.37793/2017 and found that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable merely because there is an office maintained by the respondents within the jurisdiction of this Court when none of the cause of action arose in the State of Kerala. Under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court does not have any jurisdiction to 7 W.P.(C).No.1740 of 2012N entertain a writ petition when no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is relevant to note that even though the respondent have raised the question of jurisdiction producing the judgment of the Madras High Court on the very same issue, these facts are brought to the notice of this Court, when the matter came up for hearing in the year 2018. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach the appropriate court. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** ww