Order : 1. The petitioner sought appointment on the post of Yantrik Electrical (Technical) with Indian Coast Guard. He was rejected for being medically unfit for reason of “hyper extension of knee and elbow joints”. Hence this petition. 2. The facts of the case are that the Coast Guard Headquarters, Directorate of Recruitment, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP invited online applications for appointment to the post of Yantrik Technical (Electrical). The petitioner applied for the said post on 15.09.2014. The written examination for the said post was held at Gandhi Nagar in the State of Gujarat, which the petitioner cleared. He was thereupon called for medical examination at INS Chilka, Distt. Khurda, Odisha where he was found unfit for the reasons detailed hereinabove. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in the circumstances, to ascertain as to whether reasons for holding him medically unfit were valid he approached the Principal Medical Officer, Bharatpur under his application dated 26.02.2015 for medical re-examination by a Board of competent specialists. Pursuant to the petitioner’s application for medical re-examination, the Medical Officer Bharatpur constituted a Medical Board under office order dated 09.03.2015. On 13.03.2015, the Chief Medical Officer Bharatpur furnished a report to the Board where the petitioner was found to be fit and not suffering from hyper extension of knee and elbow joints. In the aforesaid fact—as the rejection of the petitioner vide letter dated 18.02.2015 was wholly arbitrary, the respondents be directed to reconsider the petitioner for appointment on the post of Yantrik Technical (Electrical) with the Indian Coast Guard, counsel for the petitioner submitted. 4. Counsel for the petitioner was required in the facts detailed in the writ petition to satisfy this Court as to how this Court at Jaipur Bench in the State of Rajasthan had jurisdiction to address the petition agitated inasmuch as neither was the advertisement for appointment to the post of Yantrik Technical (Electrical) issued from the State of Rajasthan nor the examination written/medical in regard thereto held here. 5. Mr. Achintya Kaushik appearing for the petitioner submitted that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected vide letter dated 18.02.2015 at Bharatpur. The communication received by the petitioner constitutes part of cause of action consequent to which in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court has jurisdiction. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. 5. Mr. Achintya Kaushik appearing for the petitioner submitted that the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected vide letter dated 18.02.2015 at Bharatpur. The communication received by the petitioner constitutes part of cause of action consequent to which in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court has jurisdiction. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. There is no force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. Cause of action, it is well settled, is a bundle of material facts which are to be proved by the plaintiff to obtain a decree in his favour. On the aforesaid definition of a cause of action, the mere communication of the letter of rejection to the petitioner at Bharatpur is not a part of cause of action. Communication at Bharatpur is not a material fact required to be proved by the petitioner to find a positive order in his favour. The factum of rejection and its arbitrariness or illegality has to be proved which was at INS Chilka District Khurda in the State of Odisha. Similarly the factum of application’s being invited from Gautam Budh Nagar in UP and the holding of written examination at Gandhi Nagar are also material fact to be proved for which the jurisdictional Court in respect indeed would also have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition qua the petitioner’s aggrievement. Sadly in the facts aforesaid, I find that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition as no material fact/constituting a part of cause of action for the petitioner’s rejection for the post of Yantrik Technical (Electrical) has arisen in the State of Rajasthan. 8. Consequently, I find no force in the petition. 9. Dismissed. 10. It is needless to say that as the merits of the petitioner’s have not been addressed, the petitioner would be free to take his remedy as prayed for before the court with territorial jurisdiction on the subject matter.