S.N. Jha and B.N.P. Singh, JJ.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the policy decision contained in Air Hqrs. memo dated 12-9-1991 laying down principles and guidelines for promotion of Flight Engineers, and for a direction to promote the petitioner from the post of Flight Engineer-II to the post of Flight Engineer-I.
2. Although it is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in view of short point on which this writ petition is fit to be disposed of, it may be mentioned that the petitioner joined Indian Air Force, Engineering Technical Trade, on 23-8-1977. He was promoted to the rank of Corporal on 2-2-1983. He volunteered for Flight Engineering duties and was made Acting Sergeant (Flight Engineer-II) on 5th March, 1987. He was promoted to the rank of Sub. Sergeant with effect from 6th March, 1987.
3. The petitioner made a grievance relating to his promotion to the post of Flight Engineer-I by filing representation on 4-4-1991 before the Detachment Commander, Air Force Station, Tambaram, his Controlling Unit. It is relevant to mention that the petitioner was posted at the relevant time at Sulur Air Force Station, Coimbtore. The said representation was forwarded to the Air Headquarters. In the meantime, the aforesaid policy decision was taken on 12-9-1991. In the circumstances, he filed the instant writ petition seeking reliefs as set out at the outset.
4. A preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainability of this petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is said that as no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this writ petition is not maintainable. While dealing with this aspect, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after his retirement from service he is residing at his native place in the district of Darbhanga within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is also submitted that since the writ petition has already been admitted, the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction does not arise.
5. Before proceeding to consider the submissions of the petitioner, it may be mentioned that the petitioner took voluntary discharge with effect from 13-9-1992, that is, soon after filing of this writ petition on 25-2-1992. Another fact which may be stated is that during pendency of this writ petition, in view of a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, dated 12-8-1994, the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion but he could not be promoted as he did not score minimum marks for being promoted to the rank of Junior Warrant Officer (JWO). This was communicated to the petitioner on 25-10-1995 at his home address in Darbhanga. Counsel while making submission on the point of territorial jurisdiction tried to use this development too. He submitted that as rejection of representation of the petitioner gave rise to part of cause of action, albeit during pendency of this writ petition, the petition cannot be dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
6. As regards this submission, as sated above, the petitioner has taken voluntary discharge and is leading a retired life within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. However, maintainability of the petition has to be decided on the facts existing at the time of its filing. For the same reason, communication of the decision regarding the petitioner's unfitness for promotion during the pendency of the writ petition in this Court on 25-10-1995 would not confer jurisdiction on this Court. In fact/so far as the effect of the said communication is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gita Devi and Anr. v. The Deputy Genera! Manager, Allahabad Bank and Ors., 2002 (3) BLJR 1875, relying on two decisions of the apex Court, in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Swika Properties, (1985) 3 SCC 217 and Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., (1994)4 SCC 711, has held that unless communication forms integral part of cause of action, the fact that it was made at the particular place will not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court. The decision was rendered in the context of Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference may also be made to another unreported decision of this Court in LPA 301 of1996, The Union of India and Ors. v. Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, disposed of on 15-11-1996. It cannot be said that the communication at village address was integral part of cause of action and, therefore, the petitioner cannot draw support from the fact that communication of the aforesaid letter dated 25-10-1995 was made at his village address within the jurisdiction of this Court.
7. As regards the plea that the writ petition was admitted without any objection as to the territorial jurisdiction, the Court would like to observe that question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the case and admission of the case cannot tantamount to creating jurisdiction. It is well-settled that even consent does not confer jurisdiction on the Government. As a matter of fact, from the order dated 10-7-1992 it does not appear that any counter-affidavit was filed or any conscious decision was taken to admit the writ petition notwithstanding the bar of territorial jurisdiction. The order was passed sub-silentio and cannot be a ground on the point of maintainability of the writ petition.
8. All said and done, as indicated above, the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered in the light of the decision of the Rajasthan High-Court, apparently, in the context of impugned policy decision dated 12-9-1991 but he was not found fit for promotion and accordingly, his case was rejected. The said decision dated 25-10-1995 was never challenged by the petitioner.
9. In the above premises, this writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.