Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has sought the quashing of the communication dated 23rd March, 2011 sent by the Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Kapa, Raipur (Chattisgarh ) to the Petitioner informing him about the cancellation of the final select list of the candidates published on 26th February, 2011 for the post of Assistant Grade -III (Depot). As a result of the aforesaid cancellation of the select list, the Petitioner has also been informed that the offer of appointment to the Petitioner as Assistant Grade -III at Kapa, Raipur, Chattisgarh stands cancelled. Certain consequential reliefs have also been claimed by the Petitioner.
(2.) IT transpires from the records that an advertisement was issued by the Food Corporation of India, West Zone on 31st July, 2010 for the post of Assistant Grade -III. It was provided that the candidates, on selection to West Zone, could be posted in any State within the jurisdiction of West Zone as Category III is a Zonal Cadre post but they could also be posted anywhere in the country in the interest of the Organisation. A communication dated 5th March, 2011 was sent by the Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Kapa, Raipur (Chattisgarh ) to the Petitioner regarding offer of appointment for the post of Assistant Grade -III. It was stated that presently the Petitioner was posted in Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Kapa, Raipur (Chattisgarh ) but he could be posted anywhere in the country. Subsequently, by the communication dated 23rd March, 2011 sent by the Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Kapa, Raipur (Chattisgarh ), this offer of appointment was cancelled as the select list itself had been cancelled. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this petition as No. cause of action or even part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has, however, stated that since the offer of appointment and the letter cancelling the offer of appointment were served on the Petitioner at Kanpur (U.P.), this Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain this petition. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Phool Singh Chauhan v. Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi and Ors. 2008 (1) ESC 423 and the decisions of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr. : (2006) 6 SCC 207; Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. v. Kalyan Banerjee, : (2008) 3 SCC 456 and Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 416.;