राजस्थान हाई कोर्ट ने कहा, भारतव्यापी भर्ती में राजस्थानी चरणों से उसका क्षेत्रीय अधिकार स्थापित

- Home

- /

- High Courts

- /

- Rajasthan High Court

- /

- Pan-India Recruitment: Rajasthan...

Pan-India Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Says It Has Territorial Jurisdiction As Substantive Stages Were Conducted In State

Nupur Agrawal

7 Oct 2026 11:00 AM IST

The Rajasthan High Court has held that it has the territorial jurisdiction in matters relating to a recruitment process which was initiated for positions across India, and was conducted in various stages across the country, if substantive stages were also conducted in Rajasthan. The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal and Justice Inderjeet Singh further opined that apart from...

This is a premium content

Available exclusively to

Our subscribers

Subscribe Premium INR 1099+GST

Your support helps us to bring you more content at

an affordable subscription scheme !!!

All payment options available

The Rajasthan High Court has held that it has the territorial jurisdiction in matters relating to a recruitment process which was initiated for positions across India, and was conducted in various stages across the country, if substantive stages were also conducted in Rajasthan.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal and Justice Inderjeet Singh further opined that apart from the fact that a part of the cause of action arose in Rajasthan, the territorial jurisdiction was also affirmed by the fact that Rajasthan High Court was the convenient and appropriate forum for the petitioners, being residents here.

“…the petitioners are Rajasthan based unemployed youths, who participated in the recruitment process from Rajasthan and whose substantive recruitment stages were also conducted in Rajasthan and requiring them to pursue their constitutional remedy before a distant High Court would cause avoidable hardship and expense.”

The Court was hearing a bunch of appeals against an order of the single judge in which the preliminary objections raised by the State was dismissed.

For context, the respondents had participated in a recruitment process for pan-India recruitments in which the PET/PST and the computer test were conducted in Rajasthan, followed by trade test in Bihar, and dedicated medical examination in Delhi.

Eventually, petitions came to be filed by the respondents seeking directions to the state to consider their fitness certificates. In these petitions, the State had raised a preliminary objections regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court on the ground that no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction.

This objection was dismissed by the single judge opining that the recruitment process was a composite one and all of its different stages were inter-connected with each other. The fact that PET/PST and computer test were conducted in Rajasthan constituted integral cause of action, conferring territorial jurisdiction. This decision was challenged.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused Article 226(2) of the Constitution and held that it was well settled that Article 226(2) conferred jurisdiction if a material or integral fraction of cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the Court, and not on the location of the respondent authority.

Further, reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Versus Union of India & Ors., in which the test for what constituted a sufficient part of the cause of action was provided.

“…that what is required is a nexus between the pleaded facts and the relief and not the mere multiplication of incidental facts. It was further held that even a small fraction of cause of action arising within the State would satisfy the test that…and proceeded to hold that the dismissal of the writ petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, where a fraction of cause of action was found to have arisen within the State, could not be sustained.”

The Court further referred to the case of Baksish Ahmad Versus Union of India in which the Apex Court held that where multiple forums were available, the Court must consider which forum was more convenient and/or better suited to decide the dispute.

In this background, the appeals were dismissed, and the order of the single judge was upheld.

For Appellants: Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG with Mr. CS Sinha; Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary & Mr. Mayank Kamwar

For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar Saini, Adv. with Mr. Hemant Taylor; Adv. Mr. Vikas Meena for Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan Singh, Adv.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News