JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge on 17th May, 1994 in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 2148/92, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking a direction to be issued to the respondent to appoint the petitioner as Constable/Driver and to pay him allowances with other benefits from the date of his medical examination, was dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the recruitment of Battalion Personnel (hard core) to be made on Group Area basis and the petitioner did not belong to Jamnagar Group and therefore, no relief could be granted to him. 3. The appellant-petitioner's case as set up in his writ petition was that he was called for interview for the post of Constable on 15th February, 1990 vide letter dated 23rd January, 1990 (Ex. 1); that his case was in progress and he would be informed as and when decision was taken but thereafter, no intimation was given to the petitioner about the result of interview. After the filing of the writ petition, show cause notice was issued on 21st April, 1992 to the non-petitioners and in pursuance of the show cause notice, the non-petitioners filed the reply stating therein that though, the petitioner along with two other candidates were found fit for the recruitment as Constable/Driver, but as they did not belong to Jamnagar Group, their case for recruitment was forwarded to the Divisional Organiser, R & G SSB Division at Jodhpur for approval. But, the petitioner was found to be non-eligible for appointment. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge is erroneous, because it was not denied in the reply filed by the non-petitioners (respondents) that Central Reserve Police Rules, 1955 are not applicable in the matter of appointment and other conditions of service in Special Security Bureau and according to rule 10 of C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955, the candidate was required to be a citizen of India, and therefore, the instructions, which were inconsistent with the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955 would not prevail. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Instruction Memo No. 1/17/75-SSB(E-II) dated 9th March, 1979 is ultra vires Article 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955. 5. The Memorandum dated 9th March, 1979 reads as under:- "Please refer to this Directorate's Memo No. 11/1/76-SSB-E, dated 6-10-1976 on the subject mentioned above. 2. The matter has been re-examined at length and it is felt that the recruitment of Bn. personnel (hard core) should be made on Group Area basis to which they are to be earmarked in our operational plan and would be required to merge in case of need. Recruitment of hard core from outside the Group is likely to give rise to many problems as may not be able to merge with the local population. In case the required number of ITVs are not available for recruitment from the Group Area may be resorted to, but in no case the recruitment of the Group Area in the hard core of the Group should fall below 45%. Hard core for a Group Area from outside it should not be recruited by the Bn. Commandants, without the specific and prior permission of a Divisional Organiser, where the circumstances warrant it, the relaxation in educational and physical qualification in individual cases should be obtained form the Divisional Organiser and in general from the SSB Directorate. To reiterate, efforts should always be to have 100% locals in a Group Area for recruitment as hard core. However, if the persons of technical trade like Drivers. Accountants, Sweeper etc. are not available for recruitment from an area, then these persons may be recruited from outside the Area but from within the Division. 3. In order to achieve the aforesaid object all future vacancies caused by retirement, resignation etc. should be filled up on the above principle, when ban on fresh recruitment is lifted. 4. The Divisional Organisers arc also requested to arrange inter-Bn. inter-Coy and inter-Platoon transfers within the Division in respect of Constables, L. Naiks and Naiks on a priority basis say by 31st March, 1979 to ensure that personnel attached with Groups are earmarked for the area to which they belong. It is only after these transfers have been effected that percentage of the locals in the Groups can be correctly ascertained. It is only after these transfers have been effected that percentage of the locals in the Groups can be correctly ascertained. They may also send to this Directorate a list of such Bn. personnel i.e. Constables, L. Naiks and Naiks presently posted with them but belonging to other SSB Divisions so that we may arrange their inter-Divisional transfer after ascertaining the requirements from each Division. 5. Recruitment of SSB Personnel (not only Bn. personnel but also Area Staff) should be restricted to the Division for which it is made. Exceptions should continue to be made in case of Ladakh, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, and Meghalaya till the minimum % of locals fixed for them has been achieved and too the policy should be to steadily increase the percentage of the locals. "Please acknowledge receipt." 6. We have carefully considered the reasons given in the Memorandum dated 9th March, 1979 by which the directions were given to the effect that effort should always be to have 100% locals in a Group Area for a recruitment as hard core and that the recruitment of S. S. B. personnel (not only Bn. personnel but also Area Staff) should be restricted to the division for which it is made. 7. In this appeal two questions arise for determination, these are (1) whether this Court has jurisdiction to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in this matter and (2) in case, it is held that this Court has jurisdiction to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, whether the criteria laid down in the Memorandum, dated 9th March, 1979 can be legally employed for the purpose of selection or rejection of the candidates for the post of Constable/Driver in view of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules. 8. According to appellant (petitioner) the employees of Central Reserve Police Force (in short C.R.P.F.) are members of the armed forces and persons, who were working in Special Security Bureau are governed by the C.R.P.F. Rules. The petitioner was called for interview for the post of Constable on 15th February, 90 by respondent No. 3. The letter which was issued on 23rd January, 90 asking the petitioner to appear for interview is Annex. 1. By this letter the appellant-petitioner was directed to report at Group Centre S.S.B. Patel Colony, Jamnagar on 15th February, 90 at 10.00 hours. The letter Annex. The letter which was issued on 23rd January, 90 asking the petitioner to appear for interview is Annex. 1. By this letter the appellant-petitioner was directed to report at Group Centre S.S.B. Patel Colony, Jamnagar on 15th February, 90 at 10.00 hours. The letter Annex. 1 was issued by the Commandant, GC, SSB, Jamnagar requesting him to send information about the result of interview. Annex. 3 is the reply sent by the GC, SSB, Jamnagar to the appellant (petitioner). All these documents show that it was the GC, SSB, Jamnagar (respondent No. 3) who sent the letter from Jamnagar asking the appellant (petitioner) to appear for interview, the appellant (petitioner) was called for interview at Jamnagar and in fact the interview took place at Jamnagar. Ordinarily, if the letter asking a candidate to appear for interview is issued from a place outside the State of Rajasthan and he is interviewed at a place which is also outside the State of Rajasthan, the question of exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution would not arise for the reason that the cause of action had accrued outside the territories of the State. In this case, Annex. 3 shows that when the appellant (petitioner) requested the respondent No. 3 to inform him about the result of interview, he was informed vide Annex. 3 that the case was under progress regarding appointment of Constable/Driver with the Higher Headquarters and as and when decision will be received from Higher Headquarters, he would be informed accordingly. Annex. 5 is the letter addressed by the appellant (petitioner) to the Dy. Inspector General, SSB, Jodhpur. By this letter the appellant (petitioner) requested the Dy. Inspector General, SSB. Jodhpur to pass orders for his appointment. Annex. 6 is the another letter sent by the appellant (petitioner) to the Dy. Inspector General, SSB, Jodhpur. 9. The respondent in para 5 of the reply have stated that the matter was referred to R & G, SSB, Jodhpur, who directed the respondent No. 3 to take action as per SSB Circular No. 1/17-76/ SS(E-II) dated 9-3-1979, according to which the petitioner was ineligible for selection. In view of the averments made in para 5 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the direction to comply with the instructions contained in Memorandum dated 9th March, 79 was given by the R & G, SSB Division Jodhpur. In view of the averments made in para 5 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the direction to comply with the instructions contained in Memorandum dated 9th March, 79 was given by the R & G, SSB Division Jodhpur. However, the Memorandum dated 9th March, 79 purports to have been issued by the Director, SSB at R. K. Puram, New Delhi. The Inspector General, SSB, Jodhpur has merely asked the respondent No. 3 to comply with the instructions contained in Memorandum dated 9th March, 79. The respondent No. 3 did not require any authority from the Inspector General, SSB, Jodhpur for complying with the instructions contained in above mentioned memorandum. We are of considered opinion that merely because the Inspector General, SSB, Jodhpur instructed the respondent No. 3 to comply with the Memorandum dated 9th March, 79, it cannot be said that any cause of action accrued at Jodhpur or within the territories of Rajasthan. We are therefore, of the opinion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain in the writ petition filed by the appellant (petitioner). 10. In view of the above finding on question No. 1, the learned single Judge was justified in declining to interfere with the order passed by the respondent No. 3. Regarding the question No. 2, we do not want to express any opinion, because this appeal can be decided on the basis of our decision relating to question No. 1. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal does not appear to have any force. It deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******