BHANWAR LAL BUNKER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, 17 in number, holding the posts of teacher with qualification of School Training Certificate ('stc for short), and posted at different Upper Primary Schools, having been transferred to different Primary Schools on the vacant posts under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan ('ssa' for short) by the order dated 25. 09. 2007 (Annex. 3) issued by the respondent No. 3 District Education Officer (Elementary Education) and Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dungarpur in pursuance of an order dated 30. 07. 2007 (Annex. 4) issued by the State Government seek to question the said orders dated 25. 09. 2007 and 30. 07. 2007 by way of this joint petition for writ.

(2.) WHILE considering the matter for motion-admission, this court expressed its reservations on competence of such petition jointly on behalf of 17 petitioners where the transfer/posting order in relation to each of the petitioner affords a separate and distinct cause of action; and the petitioners cannot be considered having the same cause of action. In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made elaborate submissions giving out the grounds of challenge to the orders impugned and contended that essentially the petitioners are commonly challenging the very basis of the order dated 30. 07. 2007 (Annex. 4) issued by the State Government directing that the STC qualification holder teachers be shifted to Primary Schools under SSA without regard to the rules and the law; and the petitioners are commonly aggrieved of the action of the respondents in shifting them to SSA on a pick and choose method and without framing proper policy. According to the learned counsel, the challenge to the transfer/posting order is merely an ancillary relief and else, the petition has been filed essentially to question the order dated 30. 07. 2007 (Annex. 4) as being wholly unauthorised and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel contended that cause of action in relation to the challenge to such order being one and the same, the petitioners have rightly joined in this single petition. Learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in Jagdish Narayan Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 1994 (2) WLC 615 and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. N. Pathak and Ors. vs. Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Defence & Anr. : AIR 1987 SC 716. Learned counsel further submitted with reference to the decision of this court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :2001 (5) WLC 729 = (RLW 2002 (3) Raj. 1748) that if at all there be any dispute about joining of the petitioners in a single petition, they are ready to make payment of additional court fees in relation to each of the petitioners and the petition may be entertained thus.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Division Bench, thus, in the aforesaid case of Chandmal Naurat Mai and others, held that in the matters where the petitioners are having similar or identical cause, they could still not be said to be having the same cause and, therefore, cannot maintain a joint petition. THE course adopted by the Hon'ble Division Bench in such an incompetent petition has been to give an opportunity to such joint petitioners to choose as to on whose behalf the petition would be continued leaving the others to file separate petitions, if they wish to do so.