Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India does not apply to cases where a person is discharged in terms of a contract of service, and the order of discharge is not tantamount to a dismissal or removal from service within the meaning of Article 311.

R.K.Choudhary, J.

1. This application for issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made by four teachers of the Vivekanand High School at Sakchi in the district of Singhbhum whose services have been terminated by order dated 12-1-1956 by the managing committee of the Ramkrishna Mission, Vivekanand Society. The petitioners state that they were holding permanent appointments in the said school and that the Honorary Secretary of the Ramkrishna Mission, Vivekanand Society, Jamshedpur (opposite party No. 1) issued orders on 12-1-1956 terminating the services of the petitioners with immediate effect without giving them any opportunity of hearing or without calling upon them to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated.

It is further stated that the petitioners filed appeals to the Inspector of Schools, Chota Nagpur Division, who, on 6-10-1956, informed the petitioners that their appeals have been submitted to the Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, with his findings and recommodations thereon. On 4-3-1957, the petitioners received from the District Inspector of Schools, Chota Nagpur Division, a memorandum forwarding extract copy of a letter from the Secretary, Board of Secondary Schools, Bihar, to the Inspector of Schools. According to that communication, the petitioners were informed that the President rejected the request of the discharged teachers to be reinstated in the school as these teachers did not maintain discipline and did not behave properly at a time when the school faced difficulties.

The petitioners thereupon filed the present application in this Court for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the managing committee dated 12-1-1956 terminating their services with immediate effect and the order of the President, Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, communicated to the petitioners by the District Inspector of Schools referred to above. Notice was issued to the opposite party to show cause why the above order should not be quashed and the Honorary Secretary (opposite party No. 1) has shown cause by filing a counter-affidavit sworn by the Head Master of the school.

2. An objection has been raised to the grant of any writ in the present case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on an application being made by the four petitioners against four different orders of the same date passed against them separately terminating their services. It has been contended that the four petitioners were served with four different orders terminating their services and they should, therefore, have made four separate applications for separate writs. The objection is well founded and must prevail. The statement of law on this subject is given in Halsburys Laws of England (Second Edition), Volume IX, paragraph 1325 at page 783 in these terms :

"Two or more persons cannot join in a single application for a writ of mandamus to enforce separate claims. There must be separate applications for separate writs, and this although the several applicants are successors in the office in respect of which the claims arise."

It is manifest from the above passage that separate applications must be made for issue of separate writs to quash separate orders otherwise on one application, if it succeeds, several separate writs will have to be issued. That will lead to an absurd position. I am, therefore, of the view that the present application should fail on this ground alone. The same view has been taken in Mandir Thakar Dawara, Dhuri V/s. State of Pepsu, AIR 1955 Pepsu 159 (A) and Inder Singh V/s. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1954 Raj 185 (B).

3. Even on merit, the petitioners have no case. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in this case there has been violation of the provision of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the services of the petitioners have been terminated without giving them reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action prop