The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'cause of action' and the jurisdictional implications based on the notification No. 1/J.B. dated 23.12.1976 and relevant case law.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Borana, J. - 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.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgments passed in Virendra Dangi v. Union of India: [(1992) Supreme(Raj.) 585] and Harsh Shiksha Evam Seva Sansthan v. State of Rajasthan [(2020) 1 RLW(Raj.) 108].

3. Per contra learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the judgment passed in Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association v. 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Vivekanand Sewarth Sansthan v. 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.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection and perused the material available on record.

6. 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---

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