Substantive recruitment stages within a State can confer territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2).

The respondents participated in a pan-India recruitment process for Constable Driver posts advertised on 28 July 2020.

They were residents of Rajasthan; the PET/PST and computer test were conducted at centres in Rajasthan, while the trade test took place in Bihar and the detailed medical examination in New Delhi.

After filing writ petitions concerning their medical fitness and appointment, the Union of India raised a preliminary objection that the Rajasthan High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The Single Judge rejected that objection, holding that the Rajasthan stages formed part of the composite recruitment process and gave rise to part of the cause of action.

The Union’s connected special appeals challenged that ruling.

Whether the Rajasthan High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) when material stages of the recruitment process took place in Rajasthan, although the recruitment authority and other stages were located outside the State.

Whether Rajasthan was an appropriate and convenient forum for the disputes.

Article 226(2) of the Constitution empowers a High Court to issue writs where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its territorial jurisdiction, even if the respondent authority is located elsewhere.

“Cause of action” means the bundle of material or integral facts that must be proved to obtain relief; under Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, even a small part may suffice, but the pleaded facts must have a nexus to the dispute, as explained in Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.

The Court also relied on Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu, State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd. and Shanti Devi v. Union of India on the cause-of-action test and cautions against relying on trivial or unconnected events.

Even where jurisdiction exists, the Court may decline to exercise it on grounds of forum conveniens; the choice of forum is assessed in light of convenience and the interests of justice.

The Court treated the recruitment as a composite, inter-connected process: candidates had to clear each stage, and the same principal recruiter administered the process across locations.

The Rajasthan-based respondents had submitted their Rajasthan addresses, completed the online application process from Rajasthan, and undertaken the PET/PST and computer test there.

Those recruitment stages were materially connected to their claims, rather than incidental events, and therefore supplied a part of the cause of action within Rajasthan.

The Court further considered Rajasthan a convenient and appropriate forum given the respondents’ residence and participation in material stages there, while recognising that forum convenience alone does not determine jurisdiction.

The special appeals were dismissed, with the parties bearing their own costs; pending applications, if any, were also dismissed.