Dr. Chhote Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 10918 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11612/2022 Mohd. Sajid Khan S/o Shri Mohd. Shabbir, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Bajrang Nagar Road, Behind Pragati School, Kota. Currently Residing At Jhalawar. Currently Posted At Chief Medical Health Officer, Jhalawar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Joint Secretary (Group-2), Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director, Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

4. Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5. Dr. Ghulam Mohd, Saiyyad, Presently Posted As Senior Medical Officer, Tb Clinic, Jhalawar.

----Respondents AND

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11645/2022 Dr. Chhote Lal S/o Shri Nathu Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Pathana, Post Nihaloth, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Currently Posted As Chief Medical Health Officer, Jhunjhunu.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Joint Secretary (Group-2), Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director, Medical And Health Services, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

4. Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan, Jaipur

5. Dr. Rajkumar Dangi, Presently Posted As Deputy Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jhunjhunu.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate (through VC) assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma Mr. Rajdeep Singh Chouhan For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali, AGC Mr. M.S. Godara

(2 of 7) [CW-11612/2022]

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order 26/08/2022 Reportable

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel

for the respondent-State as well as the private respondent that

the present petitioners were posted as Chief Medical & Health

Officer at Jhalawar and Chief Medical & Health Officer at

Jhunjhunu and vide impugned orders, they have been posted at

District Hospital, Jhalawar and District Hospital, Jhunjhunu

respectively. Therefore, the jurisdiction to hear the present

petitions lie with Jaipur Bench of this Court in terms of Notification

No.1/J.B. dated 23.12.1976 issued by the Chief Justice of the

Rajasthan High Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the

judgments passed in Virendra Dangi Vs. Union of India :

[(1992) Supreme(Raj.) 585] and Harsh Shiksha Evam Seva

Sansthan Vs. State of Rajasthan [(2020) 1 RLW(Raj.) 108].

Per contra learned counsel for the petitioners while relying

upon the judgment passed in Rajasthan High Court Advocates'

Association Vs. Union of India & Ors. : [(2001) 2 SCC 294]

submitted that the question whether the cause of action in a case

arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench/Seat or not

has to be decided judicially case to case by the Court concerned.

He submitted that the order impugned being passed by the Joint

Secretary (Group-2) Medical & Health Department, Secretariat,

Jaipur, the jurisdiction to hear the present matters would

definitely lie at the Principal Seat.

(3 of 7) [CW-11612/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the judgment

passed by this Court in the matter of Vivekanand Sewarth

Sansthan Vs. The State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.8631/2022) wherein this Court had interfered in the

petitions wherein the petitioner-Institutes were from Jaipur. So far

as this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

concerned, firstly, the order in the above writ petition was passed

on 23.06.2022 when this Court was performing the functions of a

Vacation Judge. Notification dated 23.12.1976 specifically provides

that a Vacation Judge, whether sitting at Jodhpur or at Jaipur may

hear any case irrespective of the district in which it has arisen for

the purpose of deciding any matter which in his opinion requires

immediate action. Secondly, the said petition was listed along

with a bunch of writ petitions wherein the Institutes pertaining

both to Jodhpur and Jaipur were the parties and the cause of

action in all the petitions arose out of the common order passed

by the State Authority. Therefore, this Court entertained the said

petition well within its jurisdiction.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary

objection and perused the material available on record.

The notification dated 23.12.1976 reads as under:

"RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR

NOTIFICATION

No. 1/J.B. Dated 23-12-1976

In pursuance of the High Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976, and in exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, read with Sections 54 and 57 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to order that with effect from the 31-1-1977---

(4 of 7) [CW-11612/2022]

(a) all cases arising in the revenue districts of Banswara, Barmer, Bikaner, Bhilwara, Chitorgarh, Churu, Dungarpur, Ganganagar, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jodhpur, Nagaur, Pali, Sirohi and Udaipur (except such case or class of cases as may by special order be transferred to the Jaipur Bench) shall be disposed of by the Court at Jodhpur, and

(b) all cases arising in the revenue districts of Ajmer, Alwar, Bundi, Bharatpur, Jaipur, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu, Kotah, Sawai Madhopur, Sikar and Tonk (except such case or class of cases as may by special order be transferred to the Court at Jodhpur) shall be disposed of by the Court at Jaipur.

Provided that a Vacation Judge, whether sitting at Jodhpur or at Jaipur may hear any case irrespective of the district in which it has arisen for the purpose of deciding any matter which in his opinion requires immediate action.

Explanation.- A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the first order pertaining to that case was passed by a court, tribunal or authority irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard and irrespective also of the fact whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision.

Sd/-

Ved Pal Tyagi Chief Justice 23-12-1976."

Analyzing the explanation as appended to the above

notification in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association

(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"In case of a dispute arising whether an individual case or cases should be filed and heard at Jodhpur or Jaipur, the same has to be found out by applying the test --- from which district the case arises, that is, in which district the cause of action can be said to have arisen and then exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution."

In Virendra Dangi's case (supra), the Division Bench of this

Court at Jaipur while dealing with the same notification reiterated

the proposition that whether a case arises within the jurisdiction of

the principal seat of the High Court or within the jurisdiction of the

permanent Bench of this Court would be decided only by the Court

as and when occasion arises. In Harsh Shiksha Evam Seva

(5 of 7) [CW-11612/2022]

Sansthan (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur

dealing with the question of jurisdiction held as under:

"14. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (supra), this court finds that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the power of High Court in respect of their jurisdiction conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court, has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Art. 226. The Apex Court has further held that the High Court is also required to first determine whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the writ jurisdiction or not. This court finds that the Apex Court has interpreted Art. 226 and has also considered the scope of defining the words "cause of action". The Apex Court has elaborately dealt in para Nos. 11, 12 & 13 of the Judgment where "cause of action" has been explained in detail and it has been held that a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases of suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person.

15. This court finds that in the present case, only on the basis of orders being issued from Jaipur, it cannot be inferred that cause of action has arisen in part or whole in Jaipur and, as such, petitions can be entertained.

16. Relying on the judgment of Division Bench of this court by counsel for the petitioner, this court finds that the Division Bench has also reiterated the position for entertaining the writ petition, if part of cause of action arises in any of the districts within the jurisdiction of Principal Seat at Jodhpur or within the jurisdiction of permanent Bench at Jaipur. The facts of the present case clearly reveal that the petitioners who have their colleges in districts Banswara and Dungarpur are feeling aggrieved because of orders issued by the State Government and only on that basis, they have filed the present writ petitions, this court finds that Jaipur Bench-this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain these petitions and accordingly the writ petitions are not entertained."

In view of the ratio as laid down in the above judgments, it

can be concluded as under:

firstly, the jurisdiction would be decided on the basis of

place where the cause of action of a particular dispute has arisen;

(6 of 7) [CW-11612/2022]

secondly, it is the sole discretion of the Court to decide

where that "cause of action" arose and

thirdly, the test to be applied to decide the place of 'cause

of action' is - from which district the case arises.

A perusal of the impugned order in the present matters

shows that the same has been issued by the Competent Officer at

Jaipur posting the petitioners from CMHO Jhalawar to District

Hospital, Jhalawar and CMHO Jhunjhunu to District Hospital,

Jhunjhunu respectively. In terms of the notification dated

23.12.1976, the cases arising in the revenue districts of Jhalawar

and Jhunjhunu specifically falls under the jurisdiction of the Jaipur

Bench. Moresoever, the cause of action for the present writ

petitions is the alleged posting order which evidently has been

made from one office to the other office in Jhalawar and

Jhunjhunu respectively therefore, this Court is of the clear opinion

that the cause of action for the present disputes arose in Jhalawar

and Jhunjhunu respectively and the same falling definitely within

the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Bench, this Court at Jodhpur would

have no jurisdiction to hear the present matters. The present writ

petitions are, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioners at this juncture prayed to

withdraw the present writ petitions with liberty to file before the

competent Tribunal.

The said liberty also cannot be granted in view of the fact

that appeals had already been preferred by the petitioners before

the Tribunal at Jaipur against the order dated 03.08.2022. The

said appeals were withdrawn on 18.08.2022 after the present writ

petitions been filed. The petitioners having already availed the

remedy before the Appellate Tribunal cannot now again be granted

(7 of 7) [CW-11612/2022]

the said liberty. The petitioners withdrew the said appeals before

the Tribunal of their own choice and not because of any

compulsion of law. Moresoever, as submitted by learned counsel

for the respondents, in identical matters, a view has already been

taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the

matter of Sunil Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan; S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.9269/2022 whereby it has specifically

been directed that the respondents are not to appoint/promote

any person on the post of Chief Medical & Health Officer who is

not receiving the grade pay of Rs. 7600/-. It seems that the

petitioners were already aware of the said view having already

been taken at Jaipur Bench and therefore, instead of preferring

the writ petitions at Jaipur Bench, they preferred the same at

Jodhpur. This Court has witnessed that the said practice of

choosing forums and filing the petitions at the place seeming

favourable has become more prevalent since last some months.

Such practice which directly results into multiplicity of the

litigation and overburdening of the Courts as well as the Tribunals

cannot be appreciated by this Court. Therefore, in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the present cases the liberty as prayed

for cannot be granted by this Court.

The present writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.

Stay petitions also stand dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J 148,149-AbhishekS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)