COAL INDIA OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA — 1999 DIGILAW 134 (CAL)

M. H. S. ANSARI, J. ( 1 ) AS common questions of facts and law arise and also the commonality of the reliefs claimed in the above writ applications, all the above writ applications have been heard analogously. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the facts as stated in W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997 Basab Chowdhury v. Union of India, are being adverted to in this judgment and order. However, the contention of fact and law as urged by the learned appearing for the respective parties in all the above writ petitions have been taken note of. ( 3 ) THE writ petitioners in W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997 have challenged the notice dated 28th April, 1997 being Annexure 'g' to the writ application whereby the examinations held for First Class and Second Class Mine Managers Certificate of Competency and Overman' Certificate of Competency held at various centres in India during December, 1994 and April May, 1995, result of which declared in May, 1995 were cancelled with a direction for holding fresh examination. Based on these examination, statutory certificates are granted under the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. The statutory examinations are conducted by the Board of Mining Examinations constituted under the Coal Mines Regulations. 5 The Director General of Mines Safety is the Ex officio Chairman of this Board. There are five (5) other members from the Mining Industry and teaching research institutions nominated by the Central Government to constitute the Board of Mining Examinations. The power to constitute and reconstitute the Board is vested in the Central Government. Every matter at a meeting shall be decided by the majority of the votes of the members of the Board present at such meeting. (Regulation 11 (15) ). Under Regulation (11) (17a), the Chairman has been conferred the power to take such action or pass such orders as are necessary to implement the decisions of the Board. ( 4 ) THE examinations for grant of First and Second Class Managers, Surveyors and Overman' Certificate are conducted in two phases. In the first phase, there is a written examination and those candidates securing at least 40% marks are called for oral examinations. In the second phase, candidates who secured at least 40% marks in written examinations and an aggregated of at least 50% marks in both the written and oral examination is declared successful. In the first phase, there is a written examination and those candidates securing at least 40% marks are called for oral examinations. In the second phase, candidates who secured at least 40% marks in written examinations and an aggregated of at least 50% marks in both the written and oral examination is declared successful. ( 5 ) IN the instant writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners in the respective writ petitions appeared in the written and oral examinations and have been declared successful. Some of them have also been granted promotions based upon the said Certificates. ( 6 ) IN respect of the said four Certificates, written examinations were held from 8-12-1994 to 11-12-1994 and oral examinations were held from 24-4-1995 to 7-5-1995. The results of the examinations were published in the official gazette as also in various Newspapers on 12th May, 1995. ( 7 ) IT appears that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted an investigation with reference to B. N. Singh, the Director General and in its letter dated 1-12-1995 addressed to the Director General, Mines Safety, it was stated that the documents of the examinations Centre of the D. G. Ms. Dhanbad were scrutinised as it had transpired that large scale mal practice were done in the various examinations conducted during the period 1994-95 during the incumbency of Captain B. N. Singh, D. G. Therefore, the results of the examinations conducted by DGMS during 1994-95 is required to be reviewed at the earlier. The Director General of Mines Safety set up a Committee of high ranking Officers of the department to review the examinations for the grant of statutory Certificates conducted during December, 1994 May 1995 during the incumbency of the said B. N. Singh D. G. M. S. The Committee submitted its report to the Director General of Mines Safety. A copy of the report has been filed by the respondents before the Court. ( 8 ) THE findings of the review Committee in paragraph 5. 1 of its report are as under :"5. 1 : Marksheet of oral examination were not available. Hence, the committee is not a position to make any comments about the conduct of oral part of the examinations. ( 8 ) THE findings of the review Committee in paragraph 5. 1 of its report are as under :"5. 1 : Marksheet of oral examination were not available. Hence, the committee is not a position to make any comments about the conduct of oral part of the examinations. Since Shri B. N. Singh, the then Director General of Mines Safety, who is stated to have kept the marksheets with him was not available, the investigations had to be based on the available answer books and roll number slips. The investigations revealed some serious discrepancies in the conduct of written examination and declaration of results. The discrepancies detected in examinations by the team are noted below :" ( 9 ) THE report, thereafter, proceeds to record the discrepancies detected with respect to the various Certificates (written) examinations and have categorised the same. ( 10 ) IN its report, the review committee has found that; (i) certain candidates who had secured the minimum 40% marks prescribed in the written examination though entitled to, were not called for oral examinations; (ii) Candidates who did not secure that minimum 40% prescribed in the written examinations were called for oral examination. (iii) Some candidates who secured less than the prescribed minimum 40% marks at the written examination, were called for interview but yet were declared successful in the final results. ( 11 ) THE said report was submitted to the Central Government and in purported exercise of the power vested in the Central Government under Regulations 11 (17) (a) (iii) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 it conveyed its decision by a letter dated 19th Feb. 1997 that the aforesaid four examinations (written as well as oral) may be 6 cancelled and the examinations may be held afresh for all candidates. Treating the same as a directive, the Board by its impugned notice dated 28th April, 1997 being Annexure 'g' to the writ petition directed that the examinations referred to in the said notice held at various centres in India were cancelled with a direction that fresh examination will be held. ( 12 ) IT appears that the said decision of the respondent Board to cancel the examinations and for holding fresh examinations was questioned by various persons in various High Courts in the country. ( 12 ) IT appears that the said decision of the respondent Board to cancel the examinations and for holding fresh examinations was questioned by various persons in various High Courts in the country. Judgments of two Courts i. e. Andhra Pradesh High Court and High Court of M. P. at Jabalpur have been placed before me. ( 13 ) IN so far as the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, the challenge of the candidates was up held but in an appeal filed by the Director General of Mines Safety, the Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 17-7-1998 in Writ Appeal No. 722 of 1998 and batch allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and gave a direction for holding special examination for such candidates who could not avail the second examination after cancellation of the first examination so as to enable them to appear in the examination and qualify for grant of such Certificates. The writ petitioners, service conditions as of that day was required to be maintained subject to final result in the examination to be held in terms of the said order of the Division Bench. ( 14 ) LEARNED Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur disposed of a batch of writ petitions by his judgment and order dated 2nd March, 1998 in W. P. No. 2447 of 1997 (A. K. Anand v. Union of India), dismissing the same with a direction, however, to hold special examination for such of the candidates or petitioners who have not availed the second examination after cancellation of the first examination so as to enable them to appear in the examination and qualify for grant of Certificates. ( 15 ) MR. Shaktinath Mukherjee sought to distinguish he said two judgments by submitting that the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh Court based its conclusions on the order dated 26-8-1997 (I. A. No. 3 and 4) of the Supreme Court, which order, was an interlocutory order and was passed in the context of the ambit and scope of the appeal pending before it. The question of cancellation of the examinations was not the subject-matter of consideration before the Supreme Court. The question of cancellation of the examinations was not the subject-matter of consideration before the Supreme Court. ( 16 ) THE judgment of the learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was sought to be distinguished, inter alia, on the ground that many contentions urged in the instant matter were neither raised nor considered in that case. ( 17 ) IT was next contended by Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners that the results of the examination having been declared, finality should be attached to the same and unless the power of review is vested in the authority, the examination results could not have been reviewed in the absence of specific power in that behalf. It was further contended that the exercise of power by the authority, respondent Board in the instant case is in the nature of quasi judicial function and must, therefore, conform to the standard prescribed therefore for such proceedings i. e. to say an opportunity to the persons affected, the material relied upon (the review report) ought to have been furnished to the affected parties and the order should be one based upon reasons. Reference and reliance has been placed by Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee upon several judgments, reference to which will be made at appropriate juncture. The impugned order, it was contended, was in the nature of review and, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction, ultra vires the powers and arbitrary. ( 18 ) IT was further submitted that a perusal of the view report relied upon by the Central Government for passing the orders for cancellation of the examination results would show that the illegalities or irregularities as noticed in the conduct of the examinations have been categorised and the candidates in respect of whom such irregularities have been found, have been identified in the appendices to the said report. For the irregularities in respect of identifiable and identified candidates, the innocent candidates should not be made to suffer nor those candidates such as the petitioners who are not amongst the candidate identified by the review committee, the cancellation of their results is highly arbitrary, it was submitted. 18a. Mrs. For the irregularities in respect of identifiable and identified candidates, the innocent candidates should not be made to suffer nor those candidates such as the petitioners who are not amongst the candidate identified by the review committee, the cancellation of their results is highly arbitrary, it was submitted. 18a. Mrs. Archana Sengupta, learned counsel 7 appearing for the respondents, however, sought to counter the above submissions by submitting that the examinations in question are statutory examinations and have been conducted by the authority constituted under the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. Based upon the said examinations, successful candidates acquire the qualification for holding the post or acquiring promotions to the pots connected with coal mines. These are Certificates of competency granted to ensure the safe working conditions in the mines by competent persons. Safety, thus is the main objective and to ensure the same, the examinations for awarding competency certificates are conducted. There can be no compromise with regard to the standards of safety ensuring public safety and if the examination process is vitiated by illegalities and irregularities in the very conduct of the examinations, no person can be entitled to take advantage of the said irregularities and illegalities. It was further submitted that the decision to cancel the examination results for the aforesaid examination is neither arbitrary nor whimsical but based upon the enquiry report submitted by high ranking officers of the mines safety department. The irregularities and illegalities noticed by the said committee and as categories in their said report would establish that they are of such magnitude as to vitiate the entire examination processes warranting the setting aside of the entire examination. ( 19 ) IT cannot be disputed that there should be some finality to the examination results when published. It cannot also be disputed that the nature of duty performed by statutory Board such as the respondent while considering the question as to the cancellation of the examination, it performs a duty of a quasi judicial nature. ( 20 ) AS to the power of review, it is fairly well established that unless there is an express provision in the Act or Regulations granting express power of review, the same is not available. ( 20 ) AS to the power of review, it is fairly well established that unless there is an express provision in the Act or Regulations granting express power of review, the same is not available. ( 21 ) THE instant case is not one where any illegality or irregularity on the part of the candidates has been made the foundation for the impugned order passed by the respondent Board for cancellation of the examination. The examinations have been cancelled not because of mal practice by the candidates themselves but by the enormity of mal practice in the examination process. The examination process has been vitiated by reason of fraud and deceit on the part of those entrusted with the solemn duty of conducting fair examinations. The misdeeds in the conduct of the examination and the declaration of the results thereof has been attributed to those in charge of conducting the examinations. The review committee in its report, no doubt categorised the illegalities found by it with regard to the written examination and also substantiated the same with reference to the candidates as specified in the appendices. By identifying the candidates with the illegalities and irregularities which were committed by the respondent Board, the committee has merely demonstrated the arbitrary nature of the examination process and the declaration of results. Unqualified candidates were called for interview whereas certain qualified candidates were not so called for the interview and certain candidates who had secured less than the prescribed minimum 40% marks at the written examination, they are called for interview and some were also declared successful in the final results. The more alarming feature, as noticed by the Committee, was that the marks sheets of oral examination were not available. The said finding of the committee in para 5. 1 of its report has been extracted supra. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, that only those persons who have been named in the appendices and against whom illegality or irregularity has been found should be penalised and not others, in my judgment is not sustainable. The mark sheets of oral examinations, with respect to all candidates were not available. 1 of its report has been extracted supra. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, that only those persons who have been named in the appendices and against whom illegality or irregularity has been found should be penalised and not others, in my judgment is not sustainable. The mark sheets of oral examinations, with respect to all candidates were not available. As noticed above, the naming of persons in the appendices was only demonstrative of the findings arrived at by the committee as to the illegalities and irregularities in the conduct of the examination and declaration of results thereof on the part of those entrusted 8 with the conduct and the declaration of results. ( 22 ) IN the light of the above and keeping in view the object of the examinations viz. , awarding Certificates of Competency for ensuring safety in mines, it can and must, in my view, be held as held by the Supreme Court in Krishna Yadav v. State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 165 : ( AIR 1994 SC 2166 that the entire examination conducted and declaration of results is vitiated on the ground of fraud and, therefore, arbitrary. ( 23 ) APPLYING the principle that "fraud, unravels everything", the exercise of the power by the statutory authority in cancellation of the said examination and the results thereof on the ground of arbitrariness cannot be found fault with much less on the ground of want of the specific power of review being absent in the Act or the Regulations. For the said reasons, it must also be held that the individual innocence has no place and the contention that the innocent candidates should not be penalised, cannot accepted. The entire process of conducting the examinations and declaration of the results is arbitrary and it is that which is faulted with and not individual candidates. ( 24 ) IT must be stated here that in Krishna Yadav' case ( AIR 1994 SC 2166 ) (cited supra) on the facts, as found therein, which are not very dissimilar to those in the instant case, it was observed that "the whole examination and interview have turned out to be faracial " and in those circumstances it was held :"the only proper course open to us is to set aside the entire selection. The plea was made that innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others,. We are unable to accepted this argument. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place as "fraud unravels everything. " To put it in other words, the entire selection is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. " ( 25 ) THE Supreme Court in Pritipal Singh v. State of Haryana (1994) 5 SCC 695 : ( AIR 1995 SC 414 ) after coming to the conclusion that the selection made by the Haryana Subordinate Service Selection Board for the post of Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police was "not objective and fair" for the various factors enumerated in the judgment, the selections and appointments made consequent thereon were quashed. The Supreme Court in that case observed :"we appreciate that it may be that there are among those selected some who deserved selection and the who will, consequently, suffer as a result of this order. There is, regrettably, considering the state of the selection records, no way in which such men can be identified. The public interest outweighs their interest. The directions that we shall now give shall enable them to compete once again with those who had sought selection with little or no disadvantage as a result of the years that have passed. " ( 26 ) IN Biswa Ranjan Sahoo v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda, AIR 1996 SC 2552 Supreme Court considered the question whether the principle of natural justice is required to be followed by issuing notice to selected persons and hearing them. The said question arose in the context of the findings arrived at by the Central Administrative Tribunal as to the enormity of malpractices in the selection procedure adopted. The facts, in that case , based upon which the selection was held to be vitiated, are some what similar to the facts of the instant case. The selection in that case was made on the basis of the written examination and interview. The irregularities noted inter alia were, that marks awarded on the answer scripts were altered, that there was correction of original marks, that there was addition of marks by someone, that the tabulation of marks were altered in the case of certain candidates. The selection in that case was made on the basis of the written examination and interview. The irregularities noted inter alia were, that marks awarded on the answer scripts were altered, that there was correction of original marks, that there was addition of marks by someone, that the tabulation of marks were altered in the case of certain candidates. On the said factual matrix the question as posed by the Supreme Court and the answer thereto are as under"the question, therefore, is whether the principle of natural justice is required to be followed by issuing notice to the selected persons and hearing them ? It is true, as contended by Mr. Santosh Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, that in the case of selection of an individual his selection is not found correct in accordance with law necessarily, a notice is required to be issued and opportunity be given. In a case like mass mal practice as noted by the Tribunal as extracted hereinbefore, the question emerges : whether the notice was required to be issued to the persons affected and whether they needed to be heard ? Nothing would become fruitful by issuance of notice. Fabrication would obviously either be not known or no one would 9 come forward to bear the brunt. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in not issuing notice to the persons who are said to have been selected and given selection and appointment. The procedure adopted are in flagrant breach of the rules offending Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. "a distinction was thus drawn by the Apex Court between cases of selection of an individual and the case of "mass mal practice", when the selection process is not found correct in accordance with law in the context of the application of principles of natural justice. In the cases of individuals, "necessarily a notice is required to be issued and opportunity of hearing afforded. " Whereas, in the cases of mass mal practice issuing of notices to the successful candidates was considered not necessary. ( 27 ) IN the light of the above, the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners have to be and are hereby rejected. " Whereas, in the cases of mass mal practice issuing of notices to the successful candidates was considered not necessary. ( 27 ) IN the light of the above, the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners have to be and are hereby rejected. However, directions shall be issued enabling the petitioners to compete in the examinations once again, similar to those as in the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court with reference to their service conditions until the examinations are held, to meet the ends of justice. ( 28 ) THE impugned order, passed for cancellation of the examination as also the results thereof already declared, is founded upon relevant materials. It is not as though the respondent authority has come to the conclusion as it did based on "no material" or taking into consideration irrelevant materials. The impugned order does not, therefore, suffer from any infirmity of ultra vires or arbitrariness. ( 29 ) NON-FURNISHING of the report of the Review Committee would not also vitiated the impugned order. The post decisional opportunity by means of a judicial review as in the instant case, in my view, would meet the ends of justice. Nothing adverse has been attributed to the report of the review committee nor any fault has been found with the facts as found therein by the view committee in its report. The irregularities and illegalities as found by the said committee and categorised in the report are those attributable to the persons entrusted with the conduct of the examination and the declaration of the results thereof. No prejudice, in my judgment, has been caused to the petitioners by not furnishing the said report to the petitioners prior to the passing of the impugned order of cancellation of the examinations. ( 30 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997 must fail and reliefs as prayed for are rejected. However, there shall be a direction to the respondent authority for holding a special examination for such of those petitioners who could not avail of the second examination after cancellation of the first examination so as to enable them to appear in the examination and qualify for grant of such Certificates. However, there shall be a direction to the respondent authority for holding a special examination for such of those petitioners who could not avail of the second examination after cancellation of the first examination so as to enable them to appear in the examination and qualify for grant of such Certificates. Until holding of such fresh examination and declaration of results, the writ petitioners' service conditions, as of today, be maintained subject to the final examination to be held in terms of this order. ( 31 ) THE petitioners in the instant case have appeared in the written examinations from the Centre at Sitarampur which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court and, therefore, the objection of the respondents as to territorial jurisdiction of this Court has to be rejected, as part of the case of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. ( 32 ) W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997 is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the orders as above, however, without any order to as to costs. W. P. No. 13493 (W) of 1997, Coal India Officers' Association v. Union of India. ( 33 ) THE petitioners are all employed and working at Dhanbad in the State of Bihar and appeared for the examinations in question from the Centre at Dhanbad in the Bihar State. Thus, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this High Court. ( 34 ) ACCORDINGLY, W. P. No. 13493 (W) of 1997 is dismissed on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. W. P. No. 13494 (W) of 1997, Dhirendra Nath Mondal and others v. Union of India and others. ( 35 ) THE petitioners in the instant case appeared for the examinations in question from Sitarampur which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court has to be rejected as part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. ( 36 ) ACCORDINGLY, W. P. No. 13949 (W) 1997 is disposed of with directions as in W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997 as to the holding of fresh examinations and also with regard to maintaining of service conditions as of today until the examinations are so held. ( 36 ) ACCORDINGLY, W. P. No. 13949 (W) 1997 is disposed of with directions as in W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997 as to the holding of fresh examinations and also with regard to maintaining of service conditions as of today until the examinations are so held. ( 37 ) THERE shall, however, be no order as to costs. W. P. No. 13495 (W) of 1997, Umesh Pandit and others v. Union of India and others. ( 38 ) THE petitioners No. 1 to 5 are working at Salampur Colliery, Dhanbad. Petitioners No. 6 to 9 are working in the Colliery situated in the State of Orissa. The petitioners have appeared for the examinations in question from a Centre at Dhanbad which is beyond the jurisdiction of this High Court and accordingly, the writ petition being W. P. No. 13495 (W) of 1997 is dismissed on the sole ground of want of territorial jurisdiction, as no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this High Court. ( 39 ) THERE shall, however, be no order as to costs. W. P. No. 12860 (W) of 1997, Yogendra Mahato and others v. Union of India and others. ( 40 ) THE petitioners have appeared for the Overman' examinations from the Centre at Sitarampur within the jurisdiction of this High Court and, therefore, the objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is rejected, as part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. ( 41 ) ACCORDINGLY, W. P. No. 12860 (W) of 1997 is disposed of in terms of the orders issued in W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997, however, without any order as to costs. W. P. No. 13498 (W) of 1997, Jayabrata Majumdar and others v. Union of India and others. ( 42 ) THE petitioners have appeared for the examinations in question from the Central at Sitarampur within the jurisdiction of this High Court and, therefore, the objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is rejected, as part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. ( 43 ) ACCORDINGLY, W. P. No. 13498 (W) of 1997 is disposed of in terms of the orders issued in W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997, however, without any order as to costs. ( 43 ) ACCORDINGLY, W. P. No. 13498 (W) of 1997 is disposed of in terms of the orders issued in W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997, however, without any order as to costs. W. P. No. 13499 (W) of 1997, Subrata Bhattacharyya and others v. Union of India and others. ( 44 ) THE petitioners have appeared for the Surveyor' examinations from the Centre at Sitarampur within the jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is rejected, as part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. ( 45 ) ACCORDINGLY, W. P. No. 13499 (W) of 1997 is disposed of in terms of the order issued in W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997, however, without any order as to costs. W. P. No. 13500 (W) of 1977 Santa Kumar Chowdhury and others v. Union of India and others ( 46 ) THE petitioners have appeared for the examinations in question from the Centre at Sitarampur within the jurisdiction of this High Court and, therefore, the objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is rejected, as part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. ( 47 ) ACCORDINGLY, W. P. No. No. 13500 (W) of 1997 is disposed of in terms of the orders issued in W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997, however, without any order as to costs. W. P. No. 149191 (W) of 1997, Raj Kumar Mahanty and others v. Union of India and others. ( 48 ) THE first petitioner is working in the State of Orissa and the other petitioners No. 2 to 4 are working in the State of Bihar. They are appeared at the examinations in question from a Centre at Dhanbad which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. ( 49 ) ACCORDINGLY, the objection as to want of territorial jurisdiction of this want of territorial jurisdiction of this Court is upheld and on that sole ground, the W. P. No. 14191 (W) of 1997 is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. W. P. No. 14192 (W) of 1997, Dhirendra Nath Ghosh and others v. Union of India and others. W. P. No. 14192 (W) of 1997, Dhirendra Nath Ghosh and others v. Union of India and others. ( 50 ) THE petitioners have appeared for the examinations in questions from the Centre at Sitarampur within the jurisdiction of this High Court and, therefore, the objections to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is rejected, as part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. ( 51 ) ACCORDINGLY, W. P. No. 14192 (W) of 1997 is disposed of in terms of the orders issued in W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997, however, without any order as to costs. W. P. No. 14988 (W) of 1997, Rajcharan Roy v. Union of India ( 52 ) THE petitioners have appeared for the examinations in question from the Centre at Sitarampur within the jurisdiction of this High Court and, therefore, the objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is rejected, as part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. ( 53 ) ACCORDINGLY, W. P. No. 14988 (W) of 1997 is disposed of in terms of the orders issued in W. P. No. 11558 (W) of 1997, however, without any order as to costs. W. P. No. 9505 (W) of 1997, Yongendra Mahto v. Union of India ( 54 ) THE petitioners are all employees of the Colliery at Dhanbad in the State of Bihar. In the writ petition, they have not stated as to how this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the above writ petition. The petitioners have not stated that they appeared in the examinations from any Centre within the State of West Bengal which may constitute a part of the cause of action said to be arising within the jurisdiction of this Court. ( 55 ) ACCORDINGLY, the objection as to want of jurisdiction has to be upheld and on this sole ground, the W. P. No. 9505 (W) of 1997 is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. Order accordingly.