SATYA PRAKASH PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. LP. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I. H. Farooqui, Assistant Solicitor General of India for all the opposite parties.

(2.) This matter was initially heard on 14.7.2010 and an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was raised by Sri I. H. Farooqui. The termination order has been passed at Narsingarh, Tripura, hence it was argued on behalf of opposite parties that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of this matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the termination order though has been passed at Tripura but the written test of the petitioner was held at Lucknow and he was called for interview at Lucknow. The medical examination was also done at Lucknow and the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Lucknow. Moreover, the basis of termination order is a police verification from police station Unchahar, District-Raibareli in Uttar Pradesh. Lucknow and Raibareli both are within the jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench. Dr. Mishra has further argued that in a case in Naseeruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331, it has been held that the Courts within whose jurisdiction part of cause of action has accrued shall have the jurisdiction to decide the matter. On all these counts the writ petition is maintainable at Lucknow.

(3.) Sri I. H. Farooqui says that he is not pressing the point of territorial jurisdiction hence this Court proceeds with the merit of the case.