A petitioner’s residence alone cannot confer territorial jurisdiction over an out-of-state recruitment decision.

The petitioner, an OBC male candidate, applied for the post of Tradesman Mate (erstwhile Mazdoor) at the 9 Field Ordnance Depot, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

Although he was successful at all stages of the selection process, his candidature was cancelled and the appointment letter withdrawn because criminal cases were pending against him.

He challenged the order dated 15 June 2017 passed by the Administrative Officer, 9 Field Ordnance Depot, Kangra.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Allahabad High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the concerned authorities, the recruitment, the selection process, and the impugned order were all situated in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

Whether the Allahabad High Court could exercise territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 merely because the petitioner resided within Uttar Pradesh or was affected by the impugned order there.

Whether any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court so as to permit exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226(2).

Article 226(1) of the Constitution empowers a High Court to issue writs to any person or authority within its territorial jurisdiction.

Under the principle stated by the seven-judge Bench in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 12, the jurisdiction ordinarily depends upon the residence or location of the person or authority against whom the writ is sought, and not merely upon the place where the impugned order produces its effect.

Article 226(2) additionally permits jurisdiction where the cause of action arises wholly or in part, notwithstanding that the authority is located outside the State.

The Court also considered decisions in Jyoti Prakash Nayak v. Union of India, Kishan Lal Jat v. Union of India, and Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. Union of India, which recognised jurisdiction where a material part of the cause of action arose within the concerned State.

The Court held that the decisive facts connected the dispute to Himachal Pradesh: the respondent authorities were located at Kangra; the advertisement was issued from there; the entire selection process was conducted there; and the impugned order was passed there.

The petitioner’s residence in Uttar Pradesh, or the fact that the cancellation of his candidature affected him there, did not independently confer territorial jurisdiction.

Applying Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh, the Court concluded that the location of the authority passing the impugned order, rather than the petitioner’s residence or the place where the order was felt, governed the jurisdictional inquiry.

The authorities relied upon by the petitioner were not found applicable on the facts of the present case.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance.