Honble CHOPRA, J. — 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). We have heard Mr.M.R.Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.S.Singhvi the learned counsel for the applicant -Parishad.

(4). It was contended by Mr.M.S.Singhvi; the learned counsel appearing for the applicant Parishad that earlier, Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules,1971 were amended by the State Govt. vide its Notification Annexure-3 dated 6.9.1990 and those amendments were made with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 1.9.1988. Aggrieved against that Notification, the applicant Parishad filed a writ petition before this court but that writ petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the State Govt. thought it proper to make those amendments with prospective effect rather than with retrospective effect and, therefore, the Notification Annexure-1 dated 30.10.1993 was issued by the State Govt. making those amendments in the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 with prospective effect i.e. with effect from 6.9.1990, the date when the Notification Annexure-3 was issued by the State Govt. The effect of prospectivity stands explained in Ground No.(f) of this writ petition, wherein it has been averred that if this Notification Annexure-1 dated 30.10.1993 is allowed to stand,all the existing posts of Vice Principals or its equivalent shall be made available en-block to the Head Masters of Secondary Schools. Mr. M.S. Singhvi has submitted that when this very Notification dated 30.10.1993(Annexure-l) is being challenged by the petitioner Association and if this Notification is set aside, that will certainly adversely affect the rights of the Head Master of the applicant Parishad. He has submitted that if all of the Head Masters of the secondary schools are not made parties to this writ petition, at least this applicant Association should have been made a party to this writ petition.

(5). It was candidly conceded by Mr. M.S. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the applicant Parishad that although, no relief is being claimed against the Head Master of the Secondary Schools specifically but the import of this writ petition is that if this Notification Annexure-1 is quashed or it is held as ultra vires then Head Masters of the Secondary Schools shall certainly be vitally and adversely affected and, therefore, they are proper parties to these proceedings and so, they should be made parties to this writ petition.

(6). In support of his submissions, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma V. State of U.P.(l), wherein it has been observed as under :

" A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Art.226 without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties.

Where the Shikshak Sangh, representative body of teachers appointed in educational institutions run by local bodies and private management filed a writ petition to c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document