Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dr. Daya Shankar Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 September, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:39344]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16730/2025

1.       Dr. Daya Shankar Sharma S/o Mr. Nand Kishor Sharma,
         Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village- Post Sakat,
         Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.), At Present Working
         At Government Girls College Sainthal District Dausa,
         Rajasthan.
2.       Dr. Yatish Chandra Samarwar S/o Late Shri Mohanlal,
         Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of 365/42, Pooja Marg,
         Rajendra Nagar, Behind Naveen Garden, Dhoa Bhata
         Road, District Ajmer (Raj.) At Present Working At
         Government Girls College Lalsot, District Dausa,
         Rajasthan.
3.       Dr. Rajesh Kumar Saini S/o Ramroop Saini, Aged About
         42 Years, Resident Of Ganpati Vihar, Tajpur Road,
         Mahukalan, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur
         (Raj.), At Present Working At Government Pg Girls
         College Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
4.       Dr. Vivek Yadav S/o Shri Kedar Nath Yadav, Aged About
         43 Years, Resident Of Sahani Pada, Sarmathura, District
         Dholpur (Raj.), At Present Working At Government
         College Sarmathura, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
5.       De. Ekta D/o Ashok Kumar, Aged About 32 Years,
         Resident Of B-29 Indira Nagar, Jhunjhunu, District
         Jhunjhunu (Raj.), At Present Working At Government Girls
         College Alsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
                                                      ----Petitioners
                                  Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Higher
         Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government
         Secretariat, Jaipur-302005
2.       The Commissioner, Department Of College Education,
         Block-Iv, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg,
         Jaipur.
3.       Rajasthan College Education Society, Through The Ex-
         Officio Secretary, Executive Committee, Rajasthan College
         Education Society, Block - Iv, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
         Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur Cum Additional
         Commissioner, College Education Department, Jaipur.
4.       The Joint Director (Hrd), Department Of College
         Education, Block-Iv, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul,
         Jln Marg, Jaipur.
5.       The Principal, Gauri Devi Government Girls College, Alwar
         District Alwar, Rajasthan.
6.       The Principal, Government Girls College Lalsot, District
         Dausa, Rajasthan.
7.       The Principal, Government College Dholpur, District
         Dholpur, Rajasthan.
8.       The Principal, Snmt Government Girls College Jhunjhunu,
         District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
9.       The Principal, Pnks Government Pg College Dausa, District
         Dausa, Rajasthan.


                     (Downloaded on 05/09/2025 at 10:59:24 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:39344]                   (2 of 6)                       [CW-16730/2025]


                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Ms. Varsha Bissa
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Deepak Suthar, AGC
                                Ms. Nikita Marothi for
                                Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

04/09/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners

who are at present posted in District Dausa, Dholpur and

Jhunjhunu respectively. All the said Districts definitely fall within

the jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench of this Court. This Court in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.11612/2022; Mohd. Sajid Khan vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 26.08.2022) has already

taken a view that the matters pertaining to Jaipur jurisdiction

cannot be entertained by this Court.

2. In Mohd. Sajid Khan (supra), this Court observed and held as

under:

"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 57of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to order that with effect from the 31-1-1977---

(a) all cases arising in the revenue districts of Banswara, Barmer, Bikaner, Bhilwara, Chitorgarh, Churu, Dungarpur,

[2025:RJ-JD:39344] (3 of 6) [CW-16730/2025]

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 o fthe 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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:39344] (4 of 6) [CW-16730/2025]

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;

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

[2025:RJ-JD:39344] (5 of 6) [CW-16730/2025]

Hospital, Jhalawar and CMHO Jhunjhunu to District Hospital, Jhunjhunu respectively. In terms of the notification dated23.12.1976, 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."

3. Counsel for the petitioners on being given the option to

withdraw the writ petition, chose not to accept the same and

submitted that the writ petition be dismissed on the count of

jurisdiction.

4. Counsel however submitted that this Court has in past

entertained matters of Jaipur jurisdiction. Therefore, the present

petition be also entertained.

5. So far as the above submission is concerned, the possibility

of this Court having passed similar orders in certain writ petitions

pertaining to Jaipur jurisdiction cannot be ruled out but definitely

the same would have been done in ignorance, for one of the

following reasons :

i) No note to the effect that the matter pertained to Jaipur

jurisdiction would have been made by the office.

ii) The petition would have been mentioned to be covered by

some other judgment and no objection been raised by the

opposite counsel, such innocuous order would have been passed

in the mentioning itself.