Honble SHETHNA, J. – The petitioner Jalore District TeachersAssociation, an association of Teachers, has filed this petition through its Secretary Shri Poonam Chand Bishnoi and prayed that the order of termination of the service of the scheduled candidates may be treated as null and void and the same may be set aside and it may be declared that the scheduled candidates mentioned in Schedule -A attached to the petition are treated as continue in service and the impugned orders at Annexures 10 and 11 be quashed and set aside. Schedule-A is the list of 40 members of the association. In Schedule-B appointment order/joining dates and the working in different Panchayat Samitis by the members of the association are mentioned. (2). According to the respondents it is a gross case of fraud played with them by the members of the association. It is the case of the respondent that Varanasi Sanskrit University was established in the year 1958 under the Act of U.P. State. Later on, its name was changed by a notification dated 11.12.74 as Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvha Vidhyalaya, Varanasi. Thus, since 1974 Varanasi Sanskrit Univer- sity existence remained no more. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners produced forged degrees of Varanasi Sanskrit University and obtained service. Under the circumstances by a circular dated 14.2.91, the State Government cancelled the recognition of the degrees obtained from Varanasi Sanskrit University w.e.f. 1974 and ordered that no appointment should be made in the Government service on such degree obtained from the said University. It was orally pointed out by Shri Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, that even University Grants Commission (UGC) also declared Varanasi Sanskrit University as a fake University along with other Universities on June 26, 1991. It was also pointed out that this Court (quorum A.K. Mathur, J.) (as he then was) in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 379/91 has held that the said University was a fake one. It was also pointed by Mr. Bishnoi that Annexure P.10, circular dated 14.2.91, came to be issued by the State Government as per the order passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3709/89 as mentioned in circular itself. Thereafter, in respect of the scheduled candidates of Raniwara Panchayat Samiti, an order was passed on 11.12.92 (Annex. Bishnoi that Annexure P.10, circular dated 14.2.91, came to be issued by the State Government as per the order passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3709/89 as mentioned in circular itself. Thereafter, in respect of the scheduled candidates of Raniwara Panchayat Samiti, an order was passed on 11.12.92 (Annex. P. 11) by the respondents in pursuance to the order issued by the Chief Executive Officer, terminating the services on the basis that B.Ed. degree possessed by the Scheduled candidates was not recognised. Similar orders may also be passed against other scheduled candidates. (3). Learned counsel Shri Bishnoi for the respondents submitted that the mem- bers of the petitioner association were having forged degrees of a fake University, which was not in existence since 1974, therefore, this petition should be dismissed on merits. He also raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of this writ petition on two grounds, (i) that the petitioner association, is an unregistered association, therefore, it has no locus standi to file this writ petition. Hence, at the instance of the petitioner association, this writ petition is not maintainable; (ii) there are about 40 members of the association and different orders were passed, therefore, they were required to file separate petitions, hence, this joint writ petition is not maintainable. (4). Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Uni- versity was recognised and approved by the respondents themselves later on. Therefore, on merits, the submission made by Mr. Bishnoi cannot be accepted. On preliminary objection, he submitted that this petition was admitted after issuing notice to the other side by this Court in spite of this, this objection has been raised in the reply affidavit, therefore, now this court cannot throw away the petition on this ground. He submitted that once the petition is admitted, this Court has to decide the case on merits. Alternatively, he submitted that this petition can be considered as a joint petition filed by the members of the association and he may be permitted to amend the petition by showing remaining 39 members as co-petitioners. He submitted that such petition is maintainable under Rule 375(4) of the Rules of the High Court of Rajasthan, 1952 (for short, `the Rules) as the relief claimed in this petition is founded on the same cause of action. He submitted that such petition is maintainable under Rule 375(4) of the Rules of the High Court of Rajasthan, 1952 (for short, `the Rules) as the relief claimed in this petition is founded on the same cause of action. Lastly, he submitted that he may be permitted to prosecute his petition on behalf of only one petitioner i.e. the Secretary of the Association, who is one of the members of the association and the matter may be heard on merits and the relief may be granted in his favour. He submitted that he may be permitted to file separate petitions for the remaining Teachers members of the association. (5). I find lot of force in the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Bishnoi regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, therefore, I do not propoose to go into the merits of the case and decide the legality and validity of the impugned or- ders on merits which are challenged in this petition. Whether the University is fake one or not? Whether the respondents themselves subsequently granted permission and recognised the University or not? These questions are not required to be gone into in view of the latest Supreme Court judgment in case of Shri Mahendra Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India (1) as well as full bench judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Court in case of R.S.E.B. Accountants Association, Rajasthan, Jaipur through its convenor Tej Singh Arora vs. R.S.E.B. and another (2). It is not in dispute that the petitioner association is not a registered association. The Apex Court as well as Full Bench of this Court have held that the unregistered association has not fundamental right to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that the petitioner association is not a registered association. The Apex Court as well as Full Bench of this Court have held that the unregistered association has not fundamental right to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.E.B. Accountants Association (supra) has laid down certain conditions for entertaining such petitions, which are (a) That the members of the said association should have sufficient strength so as to come in the category of a large sect of public, (b) That the members should be identifiable, (c) That the members must be of the category of poor/illiterate/helpless or disabled, (d) That the individual member must not be capable of filing a writ petition, (e) That the entire body of the members must authorise the association to protect their legal rights, (f) That such an association must have its own Constitution, and (g) That there must be authority to file a writ petition on behalf of all the members. (6). The conditions laid down for entertaining the case is not fulfilled in this case. The submission of Mr. Choudhary that the petitioners are poor Teachers, cannot be accepted. They are very well placed. They could have filed separate petitions. It appears that only with a view to save court fees, a joint petition has been filed. An application by more than one person can not to be entertained as provided under Rule 375 (4) of the Rules except in a case where the relief claimed is founded on t he same cause of action. It does not mean that this Court should necessarily entertain such petition. It is the discretion of the court to entertain such petition or not. Merely because the relief claimed is founded on the same cause of action that does not necessarily mean that this Court should entertain such petition. When the allegation against the members of the petitioner association is that by producing forged degrees they have obtained the job of Teacher and when they are very well placed in the life then they ought to have filed separate petitions. It is true that though a specific objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of unregistered association by the respondents in the reply affidavit, this Court admitted the petition on 25.7.94. It is true that though a specific objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of unregistered association by the respondents in the reply affidavit, this Court admitted the petition on 25.7.94. The submission of Mr. Choudhary was that at the admission stage this court over ruled that objection, therefore, now it is not open to this Court to dismiss the petition on this ground. The order of admission passed on 25.7.94 is reproduced below : ``25.7.95. HONBLE SHRI V.G. PALSHIKAR, J. Mr. P.P. Choudhary, for the petitioner. Admit. Sd/- V.G. Palshikar, J. (7). From the above order, it clearly appears that this Court has merely admitted the writ petition and no order was passed over ruling the preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It also appears from the order that the same was passed not in presence of the learned counsel for the respondents. In any case, I am of the opinion that there is no res judicata for this Court to decide the point in question raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. However, learned counsel Shri Choudhary submitted that on humanitarian ground also, this Court should entertain this petition on merits and decide the same and he submitted that the respondents ought not to have raised such technical objection. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Union of India vs. Tulsi Das (DB Civil Special Appeal No. 387/96) decided on 8th Jan., 1997 (3) the court has to decide the case in accordance with law only and not on humanitarian ground. Co-incidentally, it may be pointed out that in that case, Mr. Choudhary himself appeared and argued that point, which was accepted by the Division Bench of this Court. It is true that ordinarily the respondents like State should not have raised such objection but in the given case, I am of the opinion that they were justified in raising such objection. (8). In view of the above, there is no alternative for this Court but to dismiss this writ petition solely on the ground of maintainability of the writ petition as it was filed by the unregistered association, which is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (9). (8). In view of the above, there is no alternative for this Court but to dismiss this writ petition solely on the ground of maintainability of the writ petition as it was filed by the unregistered association, which is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (9). There is no question of granting any permission or liberty to prosecute this petition by one of the members as no such liberty was granted either by the Supreme Court or this Court in the aforesaid cases. Hence, this request is also rejec- ted. (10). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed with no costs.