JUDGMENT 1. - During the course of arguments, a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents with regard to maintainability of filing the joint writ petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that in this petition the petitioners are raising voice for seeking the relief of assigning seniority and have prayed for declaring the seniority-lists dated 08.01.1993 and 29.04.1993 as illegal and that it may be declared that the seniority will be determined on the basis of rank only qua the persons who have been appointed at a time and the word "batch" does not refer to complete select-list. The petitioners have further prayed that the provisions contained in Regulation 13(2) of the Dungarpur-Banswara Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations 1985 may be declared illegal and struck down. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention towards judgment of this Court dated 22.10.2007 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6651/2007, Bhanwar Lal Bunker & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , in which, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the course adopted by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Chandmal Naurat Mal & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Another (AIR 1968 Rajasthan 20 ) is to grant an opportunity to such joint petitioners to choose, if so desired, a person on their behalf leaving the others to pursue their remedies in accordance with law; and, that the petitioners ought to state their option within two weeks from the date of the order. It is further observed that as and when such option is stated, the office shall deal with the same and list the petitioner appropriately; and, in the other event, the petition may be listed for rejection after two weeks. It is also ordered that it is made clear that the Court has pronounced only on the question of maintainability of joint writ petition; and else, this order shall have no bearing on any other aspect related to any individual petition. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this joint writ petition is not maintainable in view of the aforesaid order passed in the above mentioned writ petition on 22.10.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that the facts of that case are not applicable to the present set of facts of this writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this joint writ petition is not maintainable in view of the aforesaid order passed in the above mentioned writ petition on 22.10.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that the facts of that case are not applicable to the present set of facts of this writ petition. In the case of Bhanwarlal Bunkar (supra), the petitioners were seeking relief for quashing order dated 25.09.2003 (Annex.-3 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent in pursuance of order dated 30.07.2007 issued by the State Government, whereby 17 petitioners were transferred/posted in relation to which each of the petitioners offered a separate and distinct cause of action and the petitioners in that writ petition were not considered by the co-ordinate Bench to have the same cause of action because the petitioners of that case were transferred to different places; whereas, in the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the seniority-list and claiming declaration to treat the persons who have been appointed at a time and the word "batch" should not be treated to be referring to the complete select-list. The petitioners herein have further prayed that the provisions contained in Regulation 13(2) of the Dungarpur- Banswara Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations 1985 may be declared illegal and struck down. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the relief sought in this writ petition is on the basis of same cause of action and according to Rule 375 of the Rules of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan 1952 (hereinafter "the Rules of 1952") the present petition is maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge of this Court in Bhanwar Lal Bunker's case has heavily relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench, reported in AIR 1968 Rajasthan 20, and held that the joint writ petition filed by 17 persons does not have the same cause of action, therefore, the joint writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the facts of that case are altogether different but, on law also, certain judgments of the apex Court were not even cited before the learned Single Judge at the time of adjudication of the writ petition wherein the question of maintainability of the writ petition was decided vide order dated 22.10.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the facts of that case are altogether different but, on law also, certain judgments of the apex Court were not even cited before the learned Single Judge at the time of adjudication of the writ petition wherein the question of maintainability of the writ petition was decided vide order dated 22.10.2007. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that insertion of Rule 375 in the Rules of 1952 is quite purposeful and as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 375 it is specifically provided that an application by more than one person shall not be entertained except when the relief claimed is founded on the same cause of action. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners, in the present facts and circumstances, squarely falls within the para-meters of sub-rule (4) of Rule 375 of the Rules of 1952. It is submitted that while inserting sub-rule (4) of Rule 375, a liberty has been granted to file joint writ petition if the relief claimed is founded on the same cause of action; meaning thereby, at the time of deciding the preliminary objection the facts of particular case are required to be seen. The writ petition cannot be straight away thrown aside while observing that it has been filed by so many persons jointly. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that it is the duty of the Court to see whether the relief claimed is based upon same cause of action or not and, if the facts of the case manifestly show that the the relief sought for is based upon same cause of action, then the writ petition deserves to be entertained by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case the facts warrant that the writ petition should not be dismissed on the ground of maintainability as the relief claimed by the petitioners is based on same facts and cause of action is also the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case the facts warrant that the writ petition should not be dismissed on the ground of maintainability as the relief claimed by the petitioners is based on same facts and cause of action is also the same. 5. Inviting attention of the Court towards order dated 22.10.2007 passed in the writ petition of Bhanwar Lal Bunker (supra), it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Single Judge of this Court heavily relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Chandmal Nauratmal (supra) while, in the subsequent pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgement in Chandmal Nauratmal's case was impliedly over-ruled. Of course, the learned Single Judge, in that case, has discussed Rule 375(4) of the Rules of 1952 and considered the judgment of Chandmal Nauratmal and other judgment of the Supreme Court viz., A.N. Pathak & Others v. Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Defence & Another, AIR 1987 SC 716 , Laxmi Narayan Sharma & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others, 2001 (5) WLC 729 ; and, Sangarsh Samiti Pradhan Adhyapak Madhyamik Vidhyalaya v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 (1) WLC 756 ; but, the other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1981 SC 298 , Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India & Others (para 63 ); and, judgment of this Court reported in 1993 (1) WLC 654 , Lecturers Forum v. State of Rajasthan were not considered. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that while considering the judgment in the case of Chandmal Nauratmal, the three-Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1981 SC 298 (supra), was not taken into consideration for adjudication of the controversy with regard to maintainability of the joint writ petition. In AIR 1981 SC 298 , vide para 63, the Supreme Court held as under : "A technical point is taken in the counter-affidavit that the 1st petitioner is an unrecognised association and that, therefore, the petition to that extent, is not sustainable. It has to be overruled. Whether the petitioners belong to a recognised union or not, the fact remains that a large body of persons with a common grievance exists and they have approached this Court under Art.32. Our current processual jurisprudence is not of individualistic Anglo-Indian mould. It has to be overruled. Whether the petitioners belong to a recognised union or not, the fact remains that a large body of persons with a common grievance exists and they have approached this Court under Art.32. Our current processual jurisprudence is not of individualistic Anglo-Indian mould. It is broad-based and people-oriented, and envisions access to justice through 'class actions', 'public interest litigation', and 'representative proceedings'. Indeed, little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy. We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concept of 'cause of action' and 'person aggrieved' and individual litigation is becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions. It must fairly be stated that the learned Attorney General has taken no objection to a non-recognised association maintaining the writ petitions." 6. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the Lecturers Forum's case (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that joint writ petition filed by the petitioners or by their unregistered association is maintainable and while holding that the joint writ petition is maintainable it is observed that when a group of persons or a body of individuals having common grievance file a petition before the Court, it is in public interest that such petitions are entertained on merits instead of the same being thrown out on the hyper technical ground that joint writ petition is not maintainable. When grievance raised by a large number of persons is common and is based on similar facts, filing of separate writ petitions deserves to be avoided instead of being encouraged. The courts cannot be oblivious of the enormous increase in the volume of litigation. 7. When grievance raised by a large number of persons is common and is based on similar facts, filing of separate writ petitions deserves to be avoided instead of being encouraged. The courts cannot be oblivious of the enormous increase in the volume of litigation. 7. It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that even in AIR 1987 SC 716 (supra), a two-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that joint petition was maintainable even if the dates of appointment/promotion were different and there was nothing to prevent the Court from modulating the relief and giving directions to the respondents with reference to each of the petitioners; meaning thereby, the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge in which the Division Bench of this Court has considered the provisions of Rule 375(4) of the Rules of 1952 has been virtually over-ruled by implication of judgment in AIR 1981 SC 298 , Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India & Others and the view taken into account by the three-Judges Bench of the apex Court was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Lecturers Forum's case (supra). 8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. 9. It is not disputed by both the parties that while adjudicating upon the matter decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandmal Nauratmal (supra), after interpreting the provisions of Rule 375(4) of the Rules the Division Bench held that for a common cause of action independent writ petition can be entertained but if the relief claimed in the writ petition is not based upon common cause of action then in view of sub-rule (4) of Rule 375 of the Rules a joint writ petition should not be entertained.10-11. It is true that Rule 375, vide sub-rule (4), of the Rules of 1952 was inserted with the purpose to check filing of large number of petitions which is obvious from the language of rule itself. It is true that Rule 375, vide sub-rule (4), of the Rules of 1952 was inserted with the purpose to check filing of large number of petitions which is obvious from the language of rule itself. But, upon perusal of Rule 375 (4), as per the law laid down by the apex Court in subsequent pronouncements in the judgments reported in AIR 1981 SC 20 (supra) and AIR 1987 SC 716 (supra), it has been held with emphatic observations by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that it is broad-based and people-oriented, and envisions access to justice through 'class actions', 'public interest litigation', and 'representative proceedings'. It has been emphasised that little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy. Therefore, their Lordships expressed the view that there cannot be any hesitation in holding that the narrow concept of 'cause of action' and 'person aggrieved' and individual litigation is becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions. It is thus obvious that the Division Bench judgment in Chandmal Nauratmal's case (supra), while riveting itself around the provisions of Rule 375(4), in fact, does not come in way of entertaining a joint writ petition in view of subsequent pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court unless a joint writ petition, by the facts and circumstances emerging therein and the relief claimed therein, hinders the Court to deliver a meaningful pronouncement.12. Obviously, there is yet another important aspect of the matter. So long as possible, a joint writ petition should not be brushed aside on technical ground in view of the time-frame factor which significantly affects the Court's output. Judges in the Courts would ever find themselves at a disadvantage for paucity of time. In view of the increasing burden of litigation upon the Courts, it cannot be lost sight of that a joint writ petition, so far as it does not make it impossible or difficult to deliver a meaningful pronouncement, goes a long way in delivering substantial justice to large number of litigants within the time limitations of the Court. No hard and fast proposition of law is interpretively warranted of the provisions in this regard under the garb of sub-rule (4), Rule 375 of the Rules of 1952.13. No hard and fast proposition of law is interpretively warranted of the provisions in this regard under the garb of sub-rule (4), Rule 375 of the Rules of 1952.13. Therefore, while following the law laid down by the apex Court, which has a binding force under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, I am of the opinion that the facts of the present case speak that there is common cause of action for which this joint writ petition has been filed and I do not find anything which comes in way of the decision of this writ petition as a joint writ petition.14. In this view of the matter the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents deserves to be rejected and this writ petition may be held maintainable. It is also made clear that for deciding the maintainability of the joint writ petition though Rule 375(4) of the Rules of 1952 is required to be considered upon the facts and relief claimed by the petitioner of each case; at the same time, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 298 (supra) and, so also, law laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1987 SC 716 , A.N. Pathak and Others v. Secretary to the Government , is required to be accepted. The law laid down by the apex Court has binding force under Article 141 of the Constitution of India upon all the High Courts and, with regard to maintainability of the joint writ petition, the law has been laid down by the Supreme Court.15. The writ petition is accordingly held maintainable. List the petition for hearing on 04.02.2008.Preliminary Objection overruled *******