JUDGMENT 1. THERE were originally four petitioners in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the State of West Bengal, the officials of the said State and the President, Ad hoc committee. District School Board, Midnapore and Secretary, Ad-hoc committee, District School Board, Midnapore, as well as other members of the Ad-hoc committee of the District School Board, Midnapore. The petitioner no. 1 has described itself as the West Bengal Primary Teachers' Association, Midnapore District branch. It asserts that it is an association formed by primary teachers of different Primary Schools of the Midnapore District and the said association is registered and has further asserted "has been duly authorised to represent each and every member of the said association". The petitioners nos. 2 and 3 are office bearers of the said association and it is stated before me that they are already acting as Head Teachers of Primary School. The petitioner No. 4- is also an office bearer of the said association and it was asserted during the course of the submissions made before me that he was empanelled in the previous panel prepared for appointment as Head Teachers and he had applied for empanelment in the previous panel for the Head Teachers and was not notified that his application had been rejected and he presumed therefore that he was in the panel of Head Teachers. The subject matter of challenge is a communication being Annexure 'e' to the petition dated 12th of December, 1978. The said communication reads as follows:- "it has been under the consideration of the Board for sometimes past the demands of different recognised Primary Teachers" Organisation for cancellation of the existing Head Teachers' Panel with a view to prepare a panel afresh. After careful consideration of the matter, it has now been decided that the said Head teachers' panel be treated as cancelled with immediate effect. Sd/- D Sarker president ad-hoc Committee, District School Board, Midnapore". 2. IT has also been challenged before me that following this there was another communication dated 22nd of December, 1978 which is Annexure 'f' which is as follows :- "from: The President, Adhoc Committee, District School Board, Midnapore To : All Deputy Assistant Inspectors of School and Sub-inspectors of Schools of the District. Sub: Preparation of circle-wise panel for appointment of Head teacher in different Primary and Jr. Basic Schools under this Board. Sub: Preparation of circle-wise panel for appointment of Head teacher in different Primary and Jr. Basic Schools under this Board. In continuation of this office circular No. 5261 (130) dated 12.12.78 the undersigned has to request him to invite applications from amongst the Assistant Teachers of his circle who have got requisite qualification prescribed in Govt. Order No. 2123 SC/p dated 30. 3. 78/137-Edn (P)2-P-13-P-76 dated 16. 2. 77 and subsequent amendments vide Govt. Order No. 912 Edn (P) dated 22. 8. 77 and No. 986-Edn (P) dated 12.5.78. In the prescribed form (sample enclosed). Application may be received up to 15.1.79. (Minimum Qualification : Training and S. F. pass or equivalent with five years continuous service as a teacher in recognised Primary Junior Basic School. Training Means : Junior Basic Training, Senior Basic Training, Senior Training and P. T. Training only). Existing teacher-in-charge, even who are not dully qualified as per Govt. Order under reference may also apply for consideration. He is further requested to consolidate the particulars of the applicants in a bound register (to be supplied by the Board) as per perform enclosed and furnish the same along with the bunch of applications arranged serially by the 22.1.79. Particulars off Teacher-in-charges should be separately consolidated. Encl : 2 (Two) Sd. Illegible, president District School Board, Midnapore". In order to appreciate these challenges it is perhaps necessary to refer to certain rules But before do so it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the statute. The Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act, 1930 is the main Act, The said Act was, until as hereinafter mentioned, amended up to 1st of March, 1969 and the said Act by provision of Section 6 provided for establishment of the Central Primary Education Committee for controlling primary education. Section 4 deals with the constitution of the committee and establishment of a District School Board for the purpose of controlling primary education in the district. By the different clauses who should be the members of such District School Board were indicated. Section 8 of the Act was in the following terms : - "8. Section 4 deals with the constitution of the committee and establishment of a District School Board for the purpose of controlling primary education in the district. By the different clauses who should be the members of such District School Board were indicated. Section 8 of the Act was in the following terms : - "8. (1) There shall be a President of the Board, who shall, until the expiration of two terms of four years mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 10 after the first establishment of the Board be a member of the Board appointed in that behalf by the (State Government), and shall thereafter be a member of the Board elected in that behalf by the Board in the prescribed manner and approved by the ( State Government) : ( Provided that a President elected by a Board, may, after his election perform, the duties of his office while the question of such approval is pending ). (2) The Board may from time to time elect, for such period as it thinks fit, one of its members to be Vice President. "section 11 dealt with the position how there night be removal of members. Section 14 stipulated that every Board should be a body corporate and the consequences of being a body corporate was also indicated. Section 15 dealt with the function of the President and was in the following terms : "15. (1) The President, or in his absence, the Vice-President, shall preside at every meeting of the Board, and shall have a second or casting vote in all cases of equality of votes. (2) In the absence of both the President and Vice-President, the members present at any meeting shall elect one of their member to preside, who shall have a second or casting vote in all cases of equality of votes. " Section 18 also dealt with the duties of the president and the Vice-President and was in the following terms : "18. (1) All orders of the, Board shall be carried in to effect by the President in whom the entire executive power of the Board shall be vested and who shall be responsible for giving effect to such orders. (2) The President shall not exercise any power which by this Act is expressly declared to be exercisable by the Board. (1) All orders of the, Board shall be carried in to effect by the President in whom the entire executive power of the Board shall be vested and who shall be responsible for giving effect to such orders. (2) The President shall not exercise any power which by this Act is expressly declared to be exercisable by the Board. (3) The President may authorise the Vice-President by an order in writing to exercise any of the powers conferred or to perform any of the duties imposed on the President by this Act and thereupon the responsibility of the President in respect of such powers and duties shall devolve upon the Vice-President during the continuance of such order. (4) When the office of President is vacant the Vice-President shall exercise the functions of the President until a new President is appointed. " Section 19 dealt with the powers of the Board to make regulations and Section 22 dealt with the super session of the Board and was in the following terms : "22. (1) If at any time it appears to the (State Government) that a Board is not competent to perform or persistently makes a default in the performance of, the duties imposed upon it by or under this or any other Act, or exceeds or abuses its powers, the (State Government) may, by an order in writing, specifying the reasons for so doing, remove all appointed and elected members of such Board and direct that the vacancies shall thereupon be filled by election in respect of elected members and by appointment in respect of appointed members or that all the vacancies shall be filled by appointment. (2) From the date of an order under sub-section (1) until the vacancies are filled (a) all powers and duties of the board shall be exercised and performed by, and (b) All property vested in the board shall vest in, such person, in (a)such manner as the, (State Government) may direct". 3. THE said Act as I mentioned was also amended and thereafter by the amendment of the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1969. Section 3 of the last mentioned Act death with the super session of the District School Board and stipulated that the State Government might by an order published in the Official Gazette supersede. 3. THE said Act as I mentioned was also amended and thereafter by the amendment of the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1969. Section 3 of the last mentioned Act death with the super session of the District School Board and stipulated that the State Government might by an order published in the Official Gazette supersede. all District Boards for such periods as might be specified in the order and may from time to time by like order extend the period of super session, Section 4 of the said Act dealt with the consequences of super session and was in the following terms : 4. all District Boards for such periods as might be specified in the order and may from time to time by like order extend the period of super session, Section 4 of the said Act dealt with the consequences of super session and was in the following terms : 4. When an order of super session has been made under section 3, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the following' consequences shall ensue, namely (a)All the members of every district School Board shall vacate their offices as such members : provided that in the case of a District School Board in respect of which an order has been made under sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Act removing all appointed and elected members thereof, all the other members of the District School Board as also the person directed by the State Government under sub-section (2) of that section to exercise and perform the powers and duties of the District School Board, shall vacate their offices; (b)All the powers, duties and functions which may, under the provisions of the Act or any rule or regulation made there under or of any other law for the time being in force, be exercised, discharged and performed by a District School Board or the President or Vice-President thereof shall, during the period of super session, be, exercised, discharged and performed by the District Inspector of Schools of the district for which the District Schools Board is established provided that at any time during the period of super session the State Government may, if it thinks fit so to do, appoint, by notification in the Official Gazette, any of its officers not below the rank of a District Inspector of Schools to exercise, discharge and perform in relation to any District School Board, the powers, duties and functions, referred to in this clause, of such District School Board and the President and Vice-President thereof and thereupon, with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification, such officer shall, and the District Inspector of Schools shall not, exercise, discharge and perform such powers, duties and functions in relation ' to such District School Board. " 4. " 4. SECTION 7 of the Act stipulated that nothing in the Act should be construed as effecting or implying in any way the dissolution of the District School Board as the body corporate. In order to complete the narration of the relevant Acts it is also necessary to refer to the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1977. Section 7 of the said Act to which my attention was drawn was in the following terms ; "2. In section 4 of the West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1969, in the proviso to clause (b) (i) For the words "any of its officers not below the rank of a District Inspector of Schools", the words "an Ad hoc Committee" consisting of such number of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint, shall be substituted. (ii) For the words ''such officer", the words "the Ad hoc Committee", shall be substituted. " On or about 26th of October, 1971 rules were framed by the Governor whereby the Bengal Rural Primary Education Rules which were framed in 1940 were amended and in view of the arguments advanced it would be relevant to refer to the said rules. It was provided, interalia as follows ; "in the said rules (1) For rule 2, substitute the following rule, namely : "2 (1) The minimum qualification for appointment a primary school maintained by a Board shall be the following, namely : (a) Head Teacher school Final Pass and two years' continuous services as a teacher in a recognised primary school or School Final pass in the second division. Training shall be treated as an additional qualification and a trained teacher shall be entitled to the A category scale of pay : provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to a Head Teacher who is at present serving in a primary school with the approval of the director of Public Instruction, West Bengal. (b) Assistant Teacher school Final pass. Training shall be treated as an additional qualification and a trained teacher shall be entitled to the a category scale of pay :" Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 provided that a board should appoint teachers temporarily or substantially only from the panel of qualified teachers in the district forwarded by the Director of Public Education West Bengal in accordance with the direction if any given by him. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 was in the following terms : "(2) In issuing letters of appointment, a Board shall ensure, as far as possible, that a person is appointed as a teacher in the school which is nearest to his residence. This however, shall not be constructed to mean that he cannot be appointed elsewhere or transferred subsequently to any other school, if the Board so considers necessary. " Rule 3a was as follows : "3a. No name shall be forwarded by the Director Public Instruction, West Bengal, for appointment under a Board unless it has been included in the panel of qualified teachers prepared for the district after adequate publicity and in the manner provided in rule 3b." Rule 3 of Rule 3b was in the following terms : (3) The Selection Committee shall send their list of names of qualified persons recommended by them to the Director of Public Instruction, West bengal who may modify or alter the list. Only the names as finally approved by the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal shall be included in the panel for the district. " Rule 3e which is important stipulated as follows :- 3e. A panel of teachers for a district shall remain valid, unless exhausted earlier, for fifteen months from the last date of receiving applications from candidates or twelve months from the date of its preparation, whichever is earlier. The State Government may, however, extend the period of validity of a panel by a period not exceeding six months. " Now, in this connection it may be mentioned that Rule 3e was substituted by a new Rule by subsequent rules framed on 8th February, 1974 which is as follows : "3e. A panel of teachers for a district shall remain valid, unless exhausted earlier, for twelve months from the date of its preparation, but the State Government may extend the period of validity of a panel by a period not exceeding six months. When a panel is exhausted or ceases to be valid the Director of Public Instruction West Bengal, shall proceed to prepare a fresh panel in accordance with the provisions of these rules. " 5. ON or about 16th of February, 1977 there was certain revision of qualification for the post of Head Teachers of primary schools and a letter was written for this purpose which is relevant for the present purpose. " 5. ON or about 16th of February, 1977 there was certain revision of qualification for the post of Head Teachers of primary schools and a letter was written for this purpose which is relevant for the present purpose. The said letter was addressed to the Director of primary education by the Government and was in the following terms : "the undersigned is directed to say that the qualifications for the post of Head Teacher in primary schools under the District School Board have been prescribed in the rules framed under the Notification No. 975-Edn (P) dated 26. 10. 1971. Under the rules, the required qualification for the post of Head teacher is School Final pass and two years' continuous service as a teacher in a recognized primary school, or, School Final pass in the 2nd Division. So long, training has not been an essential qualification for this post but trained teachers are entitled to higher (A-category) Scale of pay, 2. At present no uniform policy is followed throughout the State in the matter of appointment of Head-Teachers. The mode of filling up of post of Head-Teachers varies from district to district. The question of formulating a uniform policy in this regard attracted the attention of Government. After careful consideration, the Governor is pleased to direct, pending amendment of the relevant rules, that the following procedure be adopted in the matter of appointment of Head-Teachers in Primary Schools under the District School Boards: 1) The minimum qualification for a Head-Teacher shall be as follows :- (i) Training and School Final pass or equivalent) with five years' continuous service as a teacher in a recognised primary/ junior basic school or (ii) Training and School Final pass in the 2nd Division. 2. Training will mean Junior Basic Training, Senior Basic Training, Senior Training and P.T. Training only. 3. Panels shall be prepared by the district School Board on the basis of the qualifications mentioned in clause (1) above the Head-Teachers shall, be appointed from that panel only. 4. While drawing up panels due regard should normally be given the seniority to a teacher. In determining the seniority, the length of service rendered in a recognised school, shall be taken into account other qualifications remaining the same. 5. 4. While drawing up panels due regard should normally be given the seniority to a teacher. In determining the seniority, the length of service rendered in a recognised school, shall be taken into account other qualifications remaining the same. 5. The teachers-in-change of organized primary schools shall be allowed to continue as such without any Head teachers' Special pay for a period up to five years from the date of appointment. The special pay shall be sanctioned to a teacher-in-charge (to be designated as head Teacher) only when he/she acquires the minimum qualification prescribed for this purpose. 6. If a teacher-in-charge fails to get the necessary training qualification within a period of five years, a Head-Teacher shall be appointed for the school from the panel as soon as the period of 5 years from the date of appointment of Teacher-in-charge is over. Sd/- M.M. Sinha Roy, Deputy Secretary. " It appears that on 22nd of August, 1977 the said communication was amended and the relevant portion of the said communication provided as follows : "in paragraph 2 under item (1) regarding the minimum qualification for a Head Teacher, the words "or, (ii) Training and School Final pass in the 2nd Division" shall be deleted. In item (3) of the same paragraph the word "circle wise" shall be added before the words "panels shall be prepared," The following proviso may be added after item "(1) I Provided that this does not apply to existing Head Teachers who are already in respect of Head Teachers special pay." 6. IN order to complete the narration of events it may be necessary to mention that on or about 18th February, 1978 a communication was issued by the District Inspector of Schools (P. E.), Dist. School Board; Midnapore which is in the following terms :- "the following decisions were made with regard to the posting of Head Teachers is vacant posts of Primary Schools under this Board in the district after discussion with the Secretaries of 4 Primary Teachers Associations, Midnapore, District Branch, viz., A.B.P.T. A., B.P.T.A., P.S.K.S. and W.B.P.T.A. 1. The validity of the panel of head Teachers in each circle will be 2 years from 1.1.78. 2. The validity of the panel of head Teachers in each circle will be 2 years from 1.1.78. 2. Circle inspectors of Schools in consultation with the Secretaries of all Primary Teachers' Associations functioning in their circles will recommend the posting of Head Teachers only of those cases where all the associations have agreed for such posting. (a) All cases of transfer of Head Teachers within the circle will be made first. (b) Cases of inter-circle transfer of head teachers who have experiences for 15 years or above as teacher and are above 45 years of age will also be considered. (c) After postings of transferred candidates as in (a) and (b) above empanelled candidates of head teachers will be posted according to priority. Any empanelled candidates who refuses to accept any post on the ground of distance which is not less than ten miles will be granted another chance for getting appointment. 3. More experienced and qualified assistant teachers of the same school will be placed as Head Teacher in a primary school where there is no clear vacancy for posting of any teacher and an assistant teacher is working as Teacher-in-charge. A separate special panel of head teachers will be made for such cases. For preparation of such a panel, separate list of all the teachers of each such school should be forwarded to this office by the Inspecting Officers. Sd/- K. Mondal district Inspector of Schools (P. E.) Dist. School Board, Midnapore. " About the significance of this communication I shall presently advert while dealing with some of the contentions raised in this case. As I have mentioned before the District School Board had been superseded and in the meantime new members of the School Board have been appointed. I need not refer to the particular notification to which my attention was drawn constituting the different members of the said School Board. On % 12th December, 1978 as I have indicated before the President of the Ad-hoc Committee of the District School Board, Midnapore issued an office Memorandum which I have set out before wherein it was stated that it was decided that the Head teachers' panel be treated as cancelled with immediate effect. The next communication was, which is consequential upon this and which. The next communication was, which is consequential upon this and which. I have also referred dated 22nd December, 1978, inviting applications amongst assistant teachers who got qualifications in the prescribed form for constitution of a new School Board. (Sic, head teachers panel ?) Both are the subject matters of challenge. 7. BROADLY speaking three points were taken in support of this application. Firstly, it was submitted the President of the Adhoc committee of the District School Board had no jurisdiction and/or power and/or authority to cancel the panel in the manner he has purported to do. It was submitted that in any event he had no power to invite applications for constitution of a new panel and for laying down the norms of the constitution of new panel and therefore it was urged that in any event without the constitution of the new panel the cancellation of the previous panel would lead to an anamolous position and, therefore, both must fall together. It was, secondly, submitted that in view of the communication dated 18th February, 1978 whereby the validity of the panel of the head teachers in each circle was decided to be for two years from the 1st January, 1978 the respondent authorities or the President of the members of the District School Board did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the existing panel. It was, thirdly, submitted that all the members of the ad hoc committee had not been consulted and there was no decision of the District School Board. Reliance was sought to be placed on the affidavit of one of the members of the newly constituted District School Board whereby it was stated that there was no meeting held, there was no consultation made and no decision was taken by the members of the ad hoc committee to issue the impugned communication which was the subject matter of challenge in this application. 8. ON behalf of the respondents, several contentions were urged. But before i deal with those contentions, I must mention that one of the major contentions urged on behalf of the Midnapore District School Board was that the application, as framed, was not maintainable. It was submitted that there were four applicants, as I have mentioned before, and it was further urged that there was no averment or evidence that the West Bengal Primary Teachers Association, Midnapore District Branch, that is, the petitioner no. It was submitted that there were four applicants, as I have mentioned before, and it was further urged that there was no averment or evidence that the West Bengal Primary Teachers Association, Midnapore District Branch, that is, the petitioner no. 1 was a body which was authorised to represent the members in the existing panel of the head teachers of the Primary Schools, nor, it was submitted, was there any resolution attached or referred to whereby it could be shown that the said association was authorised to make this application oh behalf of its members. It was submitted that no rights of the association, as such by the impugned cancellation of the existing panel and the formation of a new panel had been infringed and therefore unless there was an infringement of any existing legal right, the petitioner no. 1 had no locus stand to maintain this application. It was also pointed out that the respondent no. 2 and 3 were also the head teachers and, as such, they could not have any grievance for the cancellation of the panel out of which head teachers were to be appointed or for the formation of a new panel out of which head teachers are to be appointed in future. So far as respondent no. 4 was concerned, it was submitted that there was no averment or evidence that he was either a person who was empanelled in the previous panel which was sought to be cancelled and furthermore there was no averment that he was authorised by any head teacher, who was in the existing panel of head teachers, which had been cancelled by the impugned communication, to make this application. Unless a person or persons had legal right, he or they could not maintain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and further a joint application in respect of separate claims by different parties could not be maintained and if one of the applicants fail, then the entire application fails. In support of these contentions, several decisions were referred to and I shall deal with them presently. But before I do so, I must mention that when all these objections were taken, an application was made by one Bhabani Sankar Nandi, who claims to be added as one of the petitioners to join this application. In support of these contentions, several decisions were referred to and I shall deal with them presently. But before I do so, I must mention that when all these objections were taken, an application was made by one Bhabani Sankar Nandi, who claims to be added as one of the petitioners to join this application. He states that he has all the qualifications for being empanelled in the panel of the head teachers arid, furthermore, in 1977 when the panel of head teachers was prepared, his name was included in the panel of head teachers in circle Sadar East, Midnapore because the respondent authorities at that time was satisfied with his qualification, as laid down in the notification dated the 16th February, 1977 read with the circular dated 22nd August,1977. He further states that he was under the impression that the association was competent to represent the interest of all the teachers and therefore he had not separately joined in that application. He now, therefore, prays leave for inclusion of his name in this application and treating him as a party to this application. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed to this application where it was urged that the application was a belated one because this point of non-joinder of necessary parties in the application under Article 226 of the Constitution not being maintainable had been taken before and therefore this should be taken as a belated application. It was, secondly, submitted that the panel of assistant teachers of a district is also circle wise as in the case of head teachers and no differentiation has been made in the case of teachers and head teachers and the communication dated 1st June, 1974 issued by the Director of Public Instruction and the letter dated 23rd November, 1978, intimating the amendment of the notification were annexed to the said affidavit. It was sought to be reiterated on the basis of these Annexures that the panel of Assistant teachers and Head teachers were both made circle wise and no distinction was made and an Adhoc Committee of the different district School Boards was appointed to act as selection committee for preparation of panels. Except those averments, no records had been produced to show that Bhabani Sankar Nandi was not empanelled nor any other factual allegation was made against him. Except those averments, no records had been produced to show that Bhabani Sankar Nandi was not empanelled nor any other factual allegation was made against him. There is, of course, an allegation that there was no resolution passed by the Association, that is, the petitioner no. 1 authorising the making of the present petition. Sri Ajit Kumar Khanna, who was petitioner no. 4 had also filed a supplementary affidavit in which he had stated that he applied for empanelling his name in 1977 panel as he fulfilled all the required qualification and he was under the impression that he was included in the panel because, and unless the appointment letter was given, nobody would know whether he was empanelled or not. In any event it was contended that the cancellation of the panel of teachers affected him because he fulfilled all the qualifications and having applied in 1977 if that panel was now nullified then he would suffer and, as such, he was aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents. He has also stated that the Association was representing the interest of all the persons who had been empanelled for appointments From the panel of 1977. An affidavit-in-opposition to this has also been filed on behalf of the respondents where this factual allegation has not been admitted and it was contended that it was a belated attempt for rectification which was pointed out at the initial stage of the application. Before I embark on consideration of other aspects of law which were urged, I must first consider the contentions urged whether I should allow the application for addition of parties and. secondly, whether the application is maintainable. It is well settled that in order to maintain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution the person or persons must have some legal right against which he is or they are complaining. It is also well settled that in order to consider the question of addition of parties, there are one or two principles that the Court should bear in mind, one is that the Court should not unnecessarily prolong any litigation and should not condone belated action or attempt without sufficient justification and the other is, that the Court should see that there is no multiplicity of proceedings. If the present application of Bhaba Sankar Nandi is now refused, then, tomorrow he can move an application and that will only also prolong the determination of real issue. Unlike some countries like United States of American, class action in writ matters is not permissible but at the same time representative action is permissible and the courts have recognised that even in representative actions sometimes interest of others, who are not parties to the actual litigation but whose grievances can be said to be represented by the parties to the litigation are allowed to be agitated. 9. IN this connection it may be worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Benet Coleman and Co. vs. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC106. There, at page 114 of the report at paragraph 21, the Supreme Court referred to the rulings of the Supreme Court in the Bank Nationalisation case, AIR 1970 SC 564 . There, the Supreme Court had reiterated that where the right of a shareholder was sought to be impaired by either executive or legislative action, while there was a distinction between the right of a share holder and the company, the Supreme Court observed that the test in determining whether the shareholders right was impaired was not formal ; it was essentially qualitative, if the State action impaired the rights of the shareholders as well as of the company, the Court would not be concentrating merely upon the technical operation of the action, deny itself jurisdiction to grant relief. Relying upon the said observations of the Supreme Court at page 115 of the decision, the Supreme Court observed that Bank Nationalisation case had established the view that the fundamental rights of shareholders as citizens were not lost when they associated to form a company. When their fundamental rights, as shareholders, were impaired by State action, their rights as shareholders were protected. The reason was that the shareholders rights were equally and necessarily affected if the rights of the company were affected. The rights of shareholders with regard to Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution were projected and manifested by the newspapers, owned and controlled by the shareholders, through the medium of the corporation. The reason was that the shareholders rights were equally and necessarily affected if the rights of the company were affected. The rights of shareholders with regard to Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution were projected and manifested by the newspapers, owned and controlled by the shareholders, through the medium of the corporation. In the case before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court found that the individual rights of freedom of speech and expression of editors, directors and shareholders were all exercised through their newspapers through which they spoke. The press would reach the public through the newspapers, the shareholders would speak through their editors. The fact that the companies were the petitioners, the Supreme Court observed, did not prevent the Court from giving relief to the shareholders, editors, printers who had asked for protection of their fundamental rights by reason of the effect of law and of the action upon their rights. The locus stand of the shareholders, petitioners, was beyond challenge after the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Bank Nationalisation case. The presence of the company was on the same ruling not a bar to the grant of the relief, the Supreme Court was of the view. This Court in dealing with this principle, as early as 1954, in the case of Makhan Lal vs. S.K. Chatterjee AIR 1954 Cal 208 observed that no specific rules had been framed by the High Court for amendment of writ applications. In fact, no rules had been framed for regulating the entire pleadings. But the usual principles were applicable. One of the principles, the Court reiterated was that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid technicalities. Now, on behalf of the respondent my attention was drawn to several decisions to which I shall presently refer. 10. FIRST decision is the decision in the case of Ganesh Nayak vs. L.A. Collector. Calcutta 65 CWN 908, where Mr. Justice sinha, as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed that two persons could not join in a single application for an order of mandamus to enforce separate claims underlined by me. There must be separate applications in respect of separate orders. Even where a joint applications was permissible, if one of the applicants was disentitled to relief, the whole application would fail. There must be separate applications in respect of separate orders. Even where a joint applications was permissible, if one of the applicants was disentitled to relief, the whole application would fail. Now, the principle is that two separate independent claims could not be joined and if it could be joined, then if one of the applicants fail then the whole application fails. But I am not concerned here with separate independent claims or separate rights of the people but the claims of all concerned against the actions taken by the Government. Even if some of the applicants may not be entitled to relief while others are then I have grave doubt as to whether this principle that if the application of one person fails then the -application of others also would fail the effect would be one redundant party might have been added as a party. The distinction in this case is that it is not a case of separate independent claims by deferent individuals for the enforcement of which a joint application has been filed but it is a common grievance about one action of the respondents in respect of which the persons who are aggrieved have joined to make this application. Next decision to which reliance was placed was the decision of Mr. Justice m. N. Roy, in the case of 121. C. Bose Rd. Tenants Assoc. vs. Collector of Howrah 81 CWN 803. There, a tenants' association had moved an application in respect of an action taken and no individual tenant was as such a party to that application. There, the learned Judge was of the view that there was no infringement of any right of the tenants' association per se and as such the application was not maintainable. Now this decision of his Lordship was taken up in appeal and was confirmed by the Division Bench in the case of 12,1. C. Boss Road Tenants' Association vs. Collector of Howrah and Others, 82 CWN 33. There though the rights of the tenants as such were being affected with the acquisition but they were not parties but the tenants association made the application and it was found that no rights of the association, as such, was infringed and as no individual tenant or anybody affected by it was a party to the said writ application it was not maintainable. 11. 11. IN the decision in the case of Madhusudan Mills Ltd. vs. Corporation of Calcutta, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that a limited company could not maintain an application in respect of an action taken by the Corporation of Calcutta in putting up the hoarding space. Now, the basis upon which the Division Bench proceeded was that though the company was a rate payer but the interference of the writ complained of was that of a pedestrian and not of a rate payer as such and the company, it was held, was not a pedestrian. Therefore, by the action of the Corporation which was the subject matter of challenge in that writ application, the limited company was not aggrieved and, as such, it had no locus stand to maintain that application 12. RELIANCE was also placed on the decision in the case of The Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 40 where it was held that Article 32 was not available to a company and the theory of lifting the veil could not be availed of for consideration of this question of locus stand. Though reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of State of Assam vs. A/it Kumar Sarma AIR 1965 SC 1200 but that decision, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case is not relevant. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashmira singh vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2147 in aid of the proposition that a person must be directly concerned but that proceeded on the facts of the case. It is well-settled, as I have mentioned hereinbefore, that in order to maintain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must have a legal right and the person aggrieved must be concerned with the question. Therefore, in my opinion, though the petitioners nos. 2 and 3 have been appointed as head teachers, which fact is not seriously disputed before me, they may not have any locus stand or any right to be added as a party or any right to be empanelled in the panel in view of the averments made, if respondent no. 5 is added and together the respondent no. 2 and 3 have been appointed as head teachers, which fact is not seriously disputed before me, they may not have any locus stand or any right to be added as a party or any right to be empanelled in the panel in view of the averments made, if respondent no. 5 is added and together the respondent no. 4 claiming that he was entitled to be empanelled, having the required qualifications for 1977 empanelment, but was aggrieved by the cancellation of the panel as also for the formation of the new panel by virtue of the notification issued by the President of adhoc committee, I have sufficient reason to hold that he was directly concerned with the question and he had the right to maintain the action under Article 226 of the Constitution. The fact that the petitioners no. 2 and 3, as such may not be entitled to any relief does not, in my opinion, make the whole application liable to be dismissed. As I have mentioned before, the true principle is that where a joint application is made for separate and independent causes of action, such a joint application may fail, if one applicant fails but where a joint application is made by several persons for a common grievance and one of the applicants may not have any locus stand and the other applicants have, the entire application does not fail on that ground. In that view of the matter I am unable to accept the contention that this application, as such, is not maintainable. 13. FURTHERMORE in view of the facts and circumstances of this case and in accordance with the principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings I accordingly allow the petition of Bhaba Sankar Nandi for addition as a party and the cause title of the petition should be amended accordingly and the petitioners should take steps for amendment of the cause title. 14. THIS brings me now to the main controversy weather the cancellation of the panel was proper, valid and legal. Mr. 14. THIS brings me now to the main controversy weather the cancellation of the panel was proper, valid and legal. Mr. Bhunia, learned advocate for the respondent fairly, in my opinion, conceded that the language of the notification was unhappy and he did not also seriously contest the proposition advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the President, in view of the rules which l have set out herein before, himself has, as such, no right to cancel the panel or take any executive decision for cancellation of the panel. But his contention mainly was that the expression 'cancellation', even if it is not proper does not affect the position, because, according to him, the term of the panel had come to its natural end and therefore, there was no need to cancel the panel, as such. It was only issued to bring the record in order and it merely recorded the factum that the period of the panel had expired. It is true that the original panel was in 1977 and according to the original schedule and the rules, which have set out before, the term of the panel had expired and it had come to its normal end. Reliance was placed, as I have mentioned before on Rule 3e, which I have set out hereinbefore, issued by Notification No. 975-EDN (P)/10r-1/71 dated 26th October, 1971 and according to that notification Rule 3e states that a panel of teachers for a district shall remain valid unless exhausted earlier for 15 months from the last date of receiving application from the candidates or 12 months from the date of its preparation, whichever is earlier. The State Government may, however, extend the period of validity of a panel by a period not exceeding six months. My attention was drawn by learned Standing Counsel to the amendment, which I have already set out before, whereby it provided that a panel of teachers for a district shall remain valid, unless exhausted earlier, for twelve months from the date of its preparation, but the State Government may extend the period of validity of a panel by a period not exceeding six months. In either view of the matter, it was contended by Mr. Bhunia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the District School Board, that the panel had exhausted its period. In either view of the matter, it was contended by Mr. Bhunia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the District School Board, that the panel had exhausted its period. But the question is whether Rule 3e applies to the case of the head teachers. Now, according to Mr. Bhunia, Rule 3e applied to head teachers because teacher was a genus which was dealt with in notification dated 26th October, 1971 and head teacher was a species of that said genus. In aid of this submission, he relied on a decision of Mr. Justice Pyne to which I shall presently refer. 15. ON the other hand, on behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that Rule 3e as such did not apply to the panel of Head Teachers. Secondly, it was submitted that after the communication dated 18th February, 1978 issued by the District Inspector of Schools there was no authority to treat the panel as cancelled or to treat it as to have come to an automatic end. Now as I have mentioned before in the circular or notification dated 16th February, 1977 which is Annexure A to the petition and which dealt with the revision of the qualification for the post of Head Teachers it was reiterated by the Government that at the present moment, that is to say, the 16th February, 1977, there was no uniform policy followed throughout the State in the matter of appointment of Head Teachers. The mode of filling up of post of Head Teachers varied from district to district. The question of formulating a uniform policy in this regard had attracted the attention of Government and thereafter there was certain minor amendments to which my attention was drawn to which I have set out before which are not relevant for the purpose except clause 5 where it was stated that the teacher in charge of organised primary schools should be allowed to continue as such without any Head Teachers' Special pay for a period up to five years from the date of appointment. As I mentioned before my attention was drawn to a judgment of Mr. Justice Pyne in the case of Sri Sahadeb Patraganderpukur, P. S, Singur District hooghly-versus. The District School Board, Hooghly, Pipulpatti P.O. and Dist. Hooghly a Ors, Civil Rule. As I mentioned before my attention was drawn to a judgment of Mr. Justice Pyne in the case of Sri Sahadeb Patraganderpukur, P. S, Singur District hooghly-versus. The District School Board, Hooghly, Pipulpatti P.O. and Dist. Hooghly a Ors, Civil Rule. No. 12807 (W) of 1976 where his Lordship has dealt with Rule 3b and as such whether the qualification of Rule 3b would apply. In the particular case the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the expression 'teachers' in the said Rule except in cases where of distinction has been specifically made between Assistant Teachers' and Head Teachers would include both. These two types of teachers, i.e., Head Teacher' and 'assistant Teacher', were appointed in primary schools. Except where a distinction between Head Teachers and Assistant Teachers' was specifically made in, the rule the expression teachers in the rule would include both the Assistant Teachers' and Head Teachers. Now the question, is whether Rule 3e in view of the circular of the Government dated 16th February, 1977 and specially in view of the notification issued by the District Inspector of Schools which I set out hereinbefore which validated the panel for two years from 1st of January, 1978 Head Teachers as such have been treated separately. In my opinion, in view of the circular, Rule 3e both prior to its amendment and before, does not of course speak of Head Teachers as such. But if it is read in the light of the subsequent circular of the Government it appears to me that the Head Teachers' panel had been treated separately because otherwise the two circulars cannot be reconciled with either original Rule 3e or amended Rule 3e. The other proposition to which Mr. Justice Pyne has referred of course cannot be disputed, viz. that where certain Rules are mandatory must be followed. His Lordship has referred to the decision in the case of Kiran Sanker Deb Gupta-Vs-State of West Bengal, 1976 (1) C. L. J. 397 and Bhabatosh pati-Vs-State of West Bengal,. 1978 (1) C. L. J. 62. Therefore, I have very great doubts whether Rule 3e could be said to apply in the case of Head Teachers specially in view of the Government circular issued in 1977. Mr. 1978 (1) C. L. J. 62. Therefore, I have very great doubts whether Rule 3e could be said to apply in the case of Head Teachers specially in view of the Government circular issued in 1977. Mr. Bhuiya of course submitted that if the Rule 3e was applicable then this decision of the District Inspector of Schools dated 18th February, 1978 was beyond the Rules and as such invalid. If Rule 3e was clear I would have found it difficult not to accept this proposition of Shri Bhuiya. If these were the Rules applicable, then the Government notification dated 18th February, 1978 could not as was contended by Dr. Pal, be said to constitute a panel for two years from 1st of January, 1978 which was contrary to Rule 3e. But the practical difficulty is even if I hold that Rule 3e applies to Head Teachers which comes to an end by the efflux of time I find no jurisdiction at all for the. Ad-hoc committee to issue the Memorandum dated 22nd December, 1978 and if they have no jurisdiction to issue this Memorandum, that is to say, the President to issue instruction relating to formation of a new panel, the result would be the old panel would be treated as nonexistent with no power or no authority to form a new panel. That would create, in my opinion, an anamolous situation because it is indisputable that there was no meeting held by the District School Board which authorised the circulation of the communication which is Annexure F to the petition dated 22nd May, 1978 for preparation of panel for the appointment of Head Teachers. That would create, in my opinion, an anamolous situation because it is indisputable that there was no meeting held by the District School Board which authorised the circulation of the communication which is Annexure F to the petition dated 22nd May, 1978 for preparation of panel for the appointment of Head Teachers. Therefore if a new panel cannot be created and at the same time the old panel is treated as non-existent including the communication dated 18th February, 1978 issued by the Inspector of Schools, then in my opinion an administrative anamoly would result and it is precisely for this in my opinion that the District Inspector of Schools had issued the Circular dated the 18th February 1978 stating that the existing panel of Head Teachers would continue for two years from 1st January, 1978 anticipating by this time the Government would be able either to frame Rule for the formation of a new Committee or the Adhoc committee would be able to formulate new rules or procedure for new panel so that there is no anamoly for the creation of the new panel of the Head Teachers -to be appointed in that view of the matter, I am of opinion, that Rule 3e in view of the circular does not apply to the Head Teachers. They have been treated separately and the existing communication dated 18th February, 1978 issued by the District Inspector of Schools which extended the validity of panel of Head Teachers for two years from 1st January, 1978 is valid and would continue. The impugned communication dated 12th September, 1978 as well as 22nd December, 1978 will not be given effect to. But this, in my opinion, will not prevent the Government or the District School Board to frame Rules in accordance with law for the preparation of a new panel because the new panel after cancellation of the previous panel have to be prepared after the 1st January, 1980 inviting applications for the formation of the same and clarifying that Rule 3e would not apply to Head Teachers. With this direction the Rule is made absolute to the extent as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. 16. SREE Bhuiya drew my attention to certain practical difficulties in implementing the existing panel of head teachers. But in my opinion that cannot affect the legal position as indicated before. With this direction the Rule is made absolute to the extent as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. 16. SREE Bhuiya drew my attention to certain practical difficulties in implementing the existing panel of head teachers. But in my opinion that cannot affect the legal position as indicated before. Rule made absolute no costs.