LECTURERS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This case comes up for orders on an application filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by applicant Rajasthan Shiksha Sewa Parishad (for short 'the Parishad') for impleading it as a party to this writ petition on the ground that in case, this writ petition challenging the Notification Annexure-1 dated 30. 10. 1993 issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan is allowed then it will adversely affect the rights of the Head Masters of the Secondary Schools, who are the members of the applicant Parishad.

(2.) THIS application has been opposed at the bar by Mr. M. R. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, Mr. C. R. Jhakhar, the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. l to 3 has nothing to say about this application.

(3.) THESE submissions made by Mr. M. S. Singhvi were seriously opposed by Mr. M. S. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner-Association has not sought any relief against the applicant-Parishad. What it wants is that the impugned notification by which the judgment of the court has been sought to be nullified should be held as ultra vires and therefore, when no specific relief is being sought against the applicant Parishad, the applicant Parishad is not a necessary party to the proceedings and even if it is a proper party, this can be disposed of without impleading it as a party to the proceedings. In this respect, he has placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Genera! Manager, South Central Railway,secunderabad and another V. A. V. R. Siddhanti and others In that case,the validity of policy decisions of the Railway Board regulating seniority of Railway staff was challenged on the ground of their being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the relief was claimed only against the Railway and therefore, it was held that it is sufficient if the railway was impleaded and non-joinder of the employees likely to be affected by the decision in the case is not fatal to the writ petition. Those employees were at the most proper parties but not necessary parties. Thus, it is clear that in that case, neither constitutional validity of any provision of law nor vires of any provision of law was under challenge. However, in that case,it has been held that adversely affected parties are proper parties but not necessary parties.