Honble SINGHAL, J. — The following question has been referred to this Full Bench for consideration:

"Whether in the Schedule to the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Officers (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Regulations, 1974 under Entry No. 19 providing quota of 25% for promotion of Accountants holding the qualifica-tion of Intermediate with ICWA or Graduate with DCWA is valid and is not violative of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution."?

An objection was taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the present matter — a writ petition was filed by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Karamchari Federation vs. R.S.E.B., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5720/90 which was decided on 03.1.1991 and the prayer in the said writ petition was same which has been made in the present writ petition. It is submitted that the said writ petition was dismissed and, therefore, the members of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Karamchari Federation which a registered body, cannot submit another writ petition in the name of an unregistered association. This objection is being raised on two grounds :

(i) That the matter is barred by principles of res-judicata, and

(ii) That an unregistered association cannot file a writ petition as it has no fundamental right under Chap. III of the Constitution of India.

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 59 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Rules, 1952 the Full Bench is bound to decide the question which has been referred and cannot decide any other point. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Habu vs. State of Raj. (1), wherein the Full Bench of this court has taken the view that it is for the Full Bench to consider whether the question referred has to be answered in affirmative or negative or not to answer at all.

(3). On the preliminary objection which has been raised a specific question was asked to the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the decision on which reliance is placed, the Full Bench has the jurisdiction not to answer the question and refusal to answer the question has to be based on certain reasons. If the Full Bench comes to the conclusion that the reference itself was incompetent as the writ petition was not maintainable it has jurisdiction to refuse to answer the reference. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not effectively make any submission on this preposition and, therefore, we are of the view that even if the reference is made by the Honble Chief Justice under Rule 59 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Rules, 1952 the Full Bench has the jurisdiction to refuse to answer the question referred. The reasoning will depend on the facts of each case and cannot be generalised.

(4). On the question which is now raised on the principles of res-judicata that the second writ petition is not maintainable, we are of the view that though the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the writ jurisdiction but the principles can be applied. For the purpose of analysing the principles of res-judicata the provisions of Sec. 11 C.P.C. can be taken into consideration which are as under:

"Sec. 11— Res-judicata — No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court."

(5). The above provisions make it clear that if the matter which is directly and substantially was in issue in former suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, then the principles of res-judicata would be made applicable. The earlier writ petition which was filed was on behalf of 332 members as mentioned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document