POONAM BHARGAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed in an institute in Nepal known as Manmohan Memorial Polytechnic, Hattimudha, Nepal. Petitioner was appointed on contract basis. Petitioner claims that the contractual period was of three years in terms of the subject advertisement but she was illegally terminated before expiry of the period which is questioned in this petition.

(2.) PETITIONER however has failed to show any contract of appointment for a period of three years or more. This case was argued yesterday when a different counsel appeared, today a different counsel appears for the petitioner and argues the matter. The issues which were raised in the present case at this stage was not as regards the merits of the claim (which in any case did not seem to have much substance) but was of maintainability of this petition on account of existence of three preliminary objections as stated below: -

(3.) THE second aspect was lack of territorial jurisdiction because petitioner took employment pursuant to the advertisement issued in Nepal, joined the institute in Nepal, worked in Nepal, was terminated from the institute in Nepal and seeks continuation of the employment with the institute in Nepal and therefore entire cause of action has arisen at Nepal. Merely because Government of India has granted aid to the said institute and which at best can be taken as an aspect with respect to control, yet, the jurisdiction will be in Nepal because it is not unknown that there are autonomous organizations which are in fact controlled by the Government but qua that autonomous organizations a legal case can only be filed where the cause of action arises with respect to that organization. Merely Government of India is situated at New Delhi will not mean that so far as the facts of the present case is concerned, cause of action will accrue here whether for continuation of employment or whether for challenge to the termination.