Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, Karthik M I, a native of Thiruvananthapuram, had been provisionally selected by State Bank of India for the post of Assistant Manager (Engineer-Fire), a Specialist Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I. The petitioner was arrayed as the first accused in Crime No.519 of 2025 of Peroorkada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on a complaint preferred by his wife. The criminal case is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram as C.C.No.35 of 2026. The petitioner claimed false implication and was granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.M.C. No.1170 of 2025 as per Ext.P2 dated 27.05.2025. On account of the registration of the case, the respondent Bank was not inclined to proceed with the appointment. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 seeking six months' extension to join duty. The Bank, vide Ext.P4 dated 27.02.2026, granted extension up to 18.05.2026 but made it clear that no further extension would be granted and the candidature would be cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation seeking permission to join duty notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case. As no action was taken, the writ petition was filed seeking a direction to permit joining duty subject to the outcome of the criminal case. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability for want of territorial jurisdiction. They submitted that no cause of action arose in Kerala because the petitioner was shortlisted and interviewed at Mumbai, was provisionally directed to report for duty at State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bangalore, and none of the respondents were situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. They relied on Clause P(xv) of the General Information in the advertisement dated 22.11.2024, which provided exclusive jurisdiction to courts at Mumbai. They also contended that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding the pending criminal case and that as per Clause 12 of Important Instructions, candidates with adverse character and antecedent reports are not eligible for appointment. They further submitted that independent verification through the Commissioner of Police Thiruvananthapuram revealed the pending Crime No.519 of 2025. The respondents relied on Anil Bhardwaj v. Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others and Ravi Kumar Choudhary v. Chairman-Cum-Managing. The Court first took up the issue of territorial jurisdiction. It quoted Article 226(2) of the Constitution and held that the High Court can entertain a writ petition only if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial jurisdiction. The Court distinguished Ravi Kumar Choudhary on facts, noting that in that case the petitioner had chosen West Bengal for selection and participated in the process there, whereas the present selection was an all India selection and selected candidates were liable to be posted anywhere in India. The Court then referred to Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Another. The available text ends while discussing this case. The final decision on territorial jurisdiction and the merits of the writ petition is not supplied in the extracted judgment.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Territorial Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, Article 226(2) - The High Court can entertain a writ petition only if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial limits; the respondent Bank contended that interview at Mumbai, posting at Bangalore, respondents located outside Kerala, and exclusive jurisdiction clause in Ext.R1(A) advertisement meant no cause of action arose in Kerala; the Court distinguished Ravi Kumar Choudhary as involving candidate who selected West Bengal and participated in selection at West Bengal, whereas the present selection was All India with posting anywhere in India, and began examination under Kusum Ingots (Paras 5-6). B) Service Law - Appointment and Character Verification - Pending Criminal Case - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 85 - The petitioner was provisionally selected but was an accused in Crime No.519 of 2025 under Section 85 BNS; the respondent Bank relied on clauses P(xix) and 12 of the advertisement requiring disclosure of pending criminal cases and permitting denial on adverse character and antecedent reports; the Bank received adverse police report and cancelled candidature after granting one extension; the Court noted this contention but did not reach final decision in the available text (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Kerala High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the writ petition; whether the respondent Bank's refusal to permit the petitioner to join duty due to pending criminal case is arbitrary and illegal
Law Points
- High Court jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires cause of action wholly or partly within territory
- exclusive jurisdiction clause in advertisement may oust jurisdiction
- pending criminal case can be ground for denial if adverse character report
- all India selection with liability to be posted anywhere
