Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010090062024 2025:GAU- AS:10536-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/420/2024 SANJAY CHAUHAN @ JASWANT CHAUHAN S/O SATIRAM CHAUHAN, PERMANENT R/O DALPATPUR, P.S. GAHMAR, DIST- GHAZIPUR, STATE U.P., PRESENTLY R/O C/O RAMESH CHOUHAN, VILL. SINDOSOR, P.O. JAGIROAD, DIST- MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME, NEW DELHI-01 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE NEW DELHI-01 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF MandN SECTOR IMPHAL MANIPUR 4:THE DY. INSPECTOR OF GENERAL OF POLICE GROUP CENTRE CRPF IMPHAL MANIPUR 5:THE COMMANDANT GROUP CENTRE CRPF IMPHAL MANIPU Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I ALAM, MR.I ALAM,MR. T SK Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R K D CHOUDHURY, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 11.08.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy SGI for the respondents. 2. The appellant is aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 2298/2014, inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge, while holding that this Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the subject-matter of the dispute, due to the cause of action having arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Manipur, had also decided the case on merits. 3. The counsel for the appellant submits that he does not have any quarrel with the decision of the learned Single Judge with regard to its finding that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the subject-matter of dispute. However, if the decision of the learned Single Judge on merits is allowed to stand, the same would cause prejudice to the appellant, as and when the appellant decides to challenge his termination from service in the appropriate High Court. 4. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy SGI submits that as the learned Single Judge has held that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the subject-matter of the dispute, the case should not have been decided on merits. Page No.# 3/3 5. The facts of the case is that the appellant had been appointed as a Central Reserve Police Force Constable (Water Carrier) and within a month thereafter had been issued a notice under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, terminating the petitioner’s service. We are of the view that once the learned Single Judge had held that this Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the subject-matter in dispute, it should not have gone into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2024, insofar as it relates to the finding of the learned Single Judge on the merits of the case is concerned, is hereby set aside. 6. The appellant may approach the appropriate High Court/Authority, if so advised. 7. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed off. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant