Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) No. 5386/2015 27th May, 2015 DR. MRS. NEERU AHUJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
None. ..... Respondents
Through:
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking various reliefs with respect to rectification of salary, overdue promotion and arrears.
2. Petitioner is admittedly a teacher of respondent no.2/D.A.V. Sr. Sec. Public School which is a school at Sahibabad in Ghaziabad, UP. Therefore, the entire cause of action will arise at Sahibabad in Ghaziabad, UP where the petitioner has served as a teacher in the respondent no.2/School. Merely because the managing committee of the School/respondent no.1 is pleaded to 2015:DHC:4803 be situated at Delhi will not mean that the cause of action will not arise at Sahibabad in Ghaziabad, UP inasmuch as, entire service of the petitioner has been only at the respondent no.2/School at Sahibabad in Ghaziabad, UP and not in Delhi. The respondent no.2/School will be governed by the local laws applicable to the schools in Uttar Pradesh and not the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 which applies only to schools in Delhi.
3. In any case, the law is well settled in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2011 Delhi 174, that, exercise of jurisdiction in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is subject to the principle of forum conveniens/forum non conveniens, and therefore, I consider that since the entire record with respect to the petitioner will be available not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, but within the territorial jurisdiction of a court which will deal with the petitioner’s services with the respondent no.2/School at Sahibabad in Ghaziabad, UP, this Court would be forum non conveniens.
4. In view of the above, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction or in any case is not a court of forum conveniens, and thus the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court and this writ petition is accordingly dismissed. MAY 27, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib