Alok Sharma, J.

The petitioners impugn the advertisement for Pre-entrance Examination in AY 2018-19 for admission into the Sanik School Chittorgarh as issued by the Principal Sainik School Chittorgarh limited to eligible boys alone and prays for a direction that the respondents impleaded being Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Human Resources Development and others, the State of Rajasthan and the Principal Sainik School be directed to allow the petitioners, all girl students to participate in the Pre-entrance Examination 2018-19 and seek admission in the Sainik School, Chittorgarh.

2. Aside of the merit of the petitioners' case alleging gender discrimination entailed in the exclusion of girl students from the pre-entrance examination in issue contrary to their rights under the Article 21-A of the Constitution of India as also the Rights to Children to free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ( hereafter 'the Act of 2009'), this court is required to first address the preliminary objection of Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG as to maintainability of the writ petition before the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, on ground of its lack of territorial jurisdiction. The preliminary objection is therefore being first addressed.

3. Under the High Court of Rajasthan (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Jaipur) Order, 1976 (hereafter 'the Order of 1976') a permanent bench of the High Court of Rajasthan was established on 23-12-1976 at Jaipur to exercise the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court in respect of cases arising in districts of Ajmer, Alwar, Bharatpur, Bundi, Jaipur, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu, Kotah, Sawai Madhopur, Sikar and Tonk. With reference thereto the Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan notified that effective 31-1-1977 all cases arising in revenue districts of Banswara, Barmer, Bikaner, Bhilwara, Chittorgarh, Churu, Dungarpur, Ganganagar, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jodhpur, Nagaur, Pali, Sirohi and Udaipur be disposed of by the court at Jodhpur, while those in the remaining districts by the Jaipur Bench. The order of 1976 and notification dated 23-12-1976 have been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association v. Union of India and others [(2001)2 SCC 294] to mean a territorial division of the state of Rajasthan for the purpose of exercise of the Rajasthan High Court's jurisdiction. Matters arising in the districts covered by the Jaipur Bench and Principal seat Jodhpur in terms of notification dated 23-12-1976 are to be heard exclusively by respective courts at the Principal seat Jodhpur and Jaipur Bench-except where part of cause of action also arises in a district under the control of the Principal seat or the Jaipur Bench to confer jurisdiction upon it with reference to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. Thus a matter arising in the districts, as per the territorial division, covered by the Principal seat Jodhpur can be heard at the Jaipur bench only if a part of cause of action in a case set up is shown to have arisen in any of the districts covered by Jaipur Bench in terms of the notification dated 23-12-1976.

4. Evidently Article 226(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India deal with the jurisdiction of a court exercising its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction. However, the question as to whether a cause of action or a part thereof has arisen in particular territorial jurisdiction is a pure question of fact in each case. Theoretically a cause of action is a bundle of material facts required to be proved by the petitioner to be entitled to the relief claimed. Other facts material to the relief claimed are part of a cause of action. Nor is even the evidence which is necessary to prove a material fact constituting a cause of action, or a part of a cause of action. For a detailed discussion on what constitutes a cause of action and by extension a part thereof it would suffice to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash