1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Vishna Ram & 34 ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 958/2006 ... Date of Order: May 29, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr.V.R. Chaudhary for Mr. P.P. Chaudhary, for the petitioners. Mr. N.M. Lodha, Additional Advocate General. BY THE COURT: A joint writ petition by thirty-five persons under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Shikshakarmi Board (for short, “the Board” hereinafter) seeking direction to the Board to make payment of salary to the petitioners in the pay scale of Senior Shikshakarmi on completion of service provided under the Rajasthan Shikshakarmi and Senior Shikshakari Service Rules, 2002 (for short, “the Rules 2002” hereinafter), and in the alternative, to direct the respondent No.2 Board to pay the salary of the post of Senior Shikshakari to the petitioners with effect from the date of evaluation done under the Rules, 2002 with all consequential benefits and reliefs. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been appointed on different dates and have been evaluated on different dates as mentioned in Schedule-A annexed with the writ petition. It has been stated that the service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the Rules of 2002. It has further been contended that the petitioners have completed the requisite period of eight to ten years of service and have been paid the salary in the pay scale of Senior Shikshakarmi and, therefore, they seek a direction to the respondent Board to grant them the pay scale of Senior Shikshakarmi on completion of requisite service as provided under the Rules of 2002. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent State submits that firstly the joint writ petition is not maintainable as according to the petitioners themselves, they have been appointed on different dates and also evaluated on different date and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have the same cause and as such each case is required to be examined individually since their date of appointment and date of evaluation, as stated by the petitioners themselves are different. It has further been submitted that mainly the relief has been sought against the respondent No.2 Board and the respondent No.2 Board is not ameanable to writ 3 jurisdiction as the respondent No.2 Board is neither the “State” nor other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that there is no persuasive control of the State over the respondent No.2 Board. He has relied on the decisions of this Court in Kailash Verma & 4 others Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., 1994 (3) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 528; Pratibha Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. SBCWP No.7655/1992 decided on 25- 2-1993 at Jaipur Bench of this Court; D.B. decision of this Court in Kishan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1260/1997 decided on 27-8-1998 and another Division Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Veera Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. and D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.174/2004 decided on 9-12-2004. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the matter pertaining to Lok Jumbish Parishad in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 752/1998, Zabunissha Vs. Project Director, Lok Jumbish Parishad & Anr., held that Lok Jumbish Parishad is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India; against which the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 8403/1998 was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Project Director, Lok Jumbish Parishad & Anr., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the operation of the impugned order of the Division Bench of this Court referred 4 above till further orders. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The questions remain for consideration is: whether the respondent No.2 Board is ameanable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and whether the respondent No.2 Board is a “State” or other Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the two Single Judge decisions in Pratibha Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra) and Kailash Verma & 4 others Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., it has been categorically held that voluntary organizations cannot be said to be an “Authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such against such voluntary organization, writ petition is not maintainable. In D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1260/1997 decided on 27-8-1998, a Division Bench of this Court, considering the case on similar facts in which the writ petition was filed against the Board, held that the respondent Board is not a “State” or instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, not ameanable to writ jurisdiction. Another Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Veera Vs. State of Rajathan and ors. (supra) held that the relief is sought against the Rajasthan Shikshakarmi Board and relying on the decision in Kailash Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra), it was held 5 that the writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent like Rajasthan Shikshakarmi Board as it is not a “State” or other Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In view of the consistent view taken by the learned Single Benches as well as the Division Benches of this Court notice above, in my view, the respondent No.2 Rajasthan Shikshakarmi Board is not a “State” or other Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, not ameanable to writ jurisdiction and on this count alone, the writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent No.2 Board and liable to be dismissed. So far as filing the joint writ petition is concerned, rule 375 (4) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 clearly provides that an application by more than one person shall not be entertained except when the relief claimed is founded on the same cause of action. In the instant case, the relief claimed is on different causes of action because as many as 35 persons have jointly filed the writ petition who have been appointed on different dates by the respondent No.2 Board and evaluation of their service is also on different dates as even as per the petitioners themselves. Therefore, they have different causes of actions which arise on different dates. Therefore, in my view, the joint writ petition as such is not maintainable in view of sub- 6 rule (4) of rule 375 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, Be that as it may, since the respondent No.2 Board is not ameanable to writ jurisdiction, as has been held in a catena of decisions of this Court referred hereinabove, in my view, the writ petition is not maintainable and as such deserves to be dismissed. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs