GITA DEVI Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking direction upon the respondent Allahabad Bank to appoint Petitioner No. 2 Rajesh Kumar on compassionate ground on the death of his father late Karambir Prasad while in employment of the Bank as Armed Security Guard at Katrasgarh Branch of the Bank.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents as to maintainability of the writ petition on the around of territorial jurisdiction. It has been submitted that Katrasgarh Branch in the district of Dhanbad lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court and as no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition is not maintainable. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that they are residents of village Hasanpur Surat in the district of Samastipur within the jurisdiction of this Court, they entered into correspondence with the Bank for compassionate appointment from there and the decision not to appoint Petitioner No. 2 was also communicated there and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and issue appropriate directions. Reliance is placed on a Bench decision in the case of Union of India v. Sarojni Mishra 2002 (1) PLJR 733. In reply on behalf of the respondents reliance is placed on Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Dwivedi 1997 (1) PLJR 769 and Sushil Kumar Pandey v. Union of India 2001 (2) BLJR 1313 : 2001 (4) PUR 678.

(3.) IN Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu (supra) Engineers INdia Limited (EIL) acting as consultants for ONGC issued an advertisement in the leading newspaper of the country inviting tenders for setting up of a Kerosene Recovery Processing Unit at ONGC's Hazira Complex in Gujarat. As per the advertisement tenders containing offer were to be sent to EIL at New Delhi. The Company (NICCO) having its registered office at Calcutta, as per its case read and become aware of the tender notice printed in the Times of INdia, circulated within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court and submitted its tender. The tenders were to be scrutinised by a Tender Committee and the final decision was to be taken by Steering Committee at New Delhi. The tender of NICCO was rejected. After the Tender Committee disagreed, the EIL again reconsidered the matter and reiterated its earlier view that NICCO lacked the experience criteria. This time the Tender Committee agreed with the recommendation and accordingly NICCO was not recommended for shortlisting by the Tender Committee. NICCO filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Calcutta High Court praying that ONGC be restrained from awarding the contract to any other party and, if awarded, to cancel the same.