JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Dr. N.K. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. F. Ahmed learned Counsel representing the Association/Appellant as well as Mr. S. Sarma, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of official Respondent/State of Manipur and others. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 12.9.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions being Civil Rule No. 300/97 alongwith other' Civil Rules (The Headmasters/Teachers in-charge Association and Ors. v. State of Manipur and Ors.). 3. The basic grievance of the Appellant as demonstrated in this writ appeal is that although the services of the members of the Appellant association were utilized and exploited by the Respondent-State by allowing them to work as in-charge Headmasters in the respective upgraded junior High Schools in the State of Manipur, their services were not regularized as Headmasters and denying such regularization of their services, the Commissioner of Education, Government of Manipur issued the impugned order dated 4.3.1997 appointing the private Respondents herein as Headmasters in those Upgraded Junior High School on promotion. While those impugned orders were challenged before the writ Court, the learned Single Judge by the impugned common judgment and order dated 12.7.1997, rejected the contention of the Appellants holding that the members of the Appellant association were found to be much junior to those private Respondents keeping in view the stand taken by the Government to the effect that the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short DPC) so held for such promotion for the post of Headmasters in the Upgraded Junior High Schools found those promotees to be seniors to the members of the Association. 4. Dr. Singh learned senior counsel, in support of this writ appeal and assailing the impugned common judgment and order passed by writ Court, has forcefully contended that the learned Single Judge committed an error of law and on facts in not making a close scrutiny as regards the seniority of the members of the Appellant herein. According to him, since they had duly been appointed as in-charge of the Headmasters and that too they had served in that capacity for a considerable length of period, they are entitled to get regular Headmastership and the denial of such benefit of regularization, resulted in arbitrariness and discrimination and the same would adversely affect their pensionary benefits. 5. According to him, since they had duly been appointed as in-charge of the Headmasters and that too they had served in that capacity for a considerable length of period, they are entitled to get regular Headmastership and the denial of such benefit of regularization, resulted in arbitrariness and discrimination and the same would adversely affect their pensionary benefits. 5. Confronting the submissions and contentions made on behalf of the Appellant-Association and opening his arguments on behalf of the State, at the very outset, Mr. Sarma, learned State Counsel, has placed on record an oral submission as a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of this writ appeal filed by the Appellant Association, namely, the Headmasters/Teachers in-charge Association of All Manipur Upgraded Junior High School, Head Office at Lamka. According to him, this appeal presented by the Association is not maintainable due to the simple reason that this Association is not a registered Association and there is nothing on record to indicate that this Association was ever registered one. Raising this technical point, Mr. Sarma has strongly urged that admittedly this is not a public interest litigation. It is also a fact that the Appellant Association is not registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or any other statute. The Association, not being a registered one, is therefore not a legal entity which can sue or be sued in its name. Significantly the aggrieved individual teachers who preferred the other writ petitions namely Civil Rule No. 327/97 (A.S. Khangoi and Ors. v. State of Manipur and Ors.), Civil Rule No. 356/97 (R.S. Henry v. State of Manipur and Ors.) and Civil Rule No. 355/97 (W. Dolendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Manipur and Ors.) did not move any appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned common judgment. 6. In support of his submission, the learned State Counsel has relied on the decisions of this Court reported in 2000 (1) GLT 374 All Manipur DIC Supervisor's Association v. State of Manipur and Ors. and in W.P.(C) No. 978/04 (Thoubal District Farmers Association for Natural Calamities v. State of Manipur and Ors.) disposed of on 28.2.2005 wherein it was held that an unregistered association had no legal personality to take up the grievance of the members an application under Article 226 of the Constitution or other legal proceeding in its under the name. and in W.P.(C) No. 978/04 (Thoubal District Farmers Association for Natural Calamities v. State of Manipur and Ors.) disposed of on 28.2.2005 wherein it was held that an unregistered association had no legal personality to take up the grievance of the members an application under Article 226 of the Constitution or other legal proceeding in its under the name. That apart making such submission as regards the maintainability, he has also relied upon the statements made by the Appellant association in Civil Rule No. 300/97 before the writ Court which reads as under: 1. That the Petitioner-Association has been formed by the Headmaster-in-Charge of the Government Junior High School upgraded in 1980, who are all aggrieved by the arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory treatment meted out by the Respondents No. 1-3 and having a common interest in the present writ petition involving common questions of facts and law if separate petitions are filed individually by them. 6. On merit also, the learned State counsel, defending the impugned judgment has, primarily relying the affidavit filed by the State before the writ Court, submitted that after holding regular and proper DPC for promotion to the post of Headmasters in the respective schools in question, all the members of the Appellant association were found to be juniors to those private Respondents herein and accordingly their case could not be considered. The basic thrust of the argument is that the appointments of the members of the Appellant association were itself on purely ad hoc basis and that too those were admittedly not in accordance with law. Under such circumstances they were not entitled to get the benefit of regularization of their services, as alleged. Mr. Sarma has also drawn our careful attention to the annexure mainly, Annexure-X2, X3 and X4 annexed to the affidavit filed by the State wherein it was clearly displayed particulars of the seniority position of the promoted Headmasters/Assistant Headmasters in Junior High School/Schools vis-a-vis the seniority and current seniority position of the members of the Appellant herein. The list of Headmasters in-charge who initially formed the Petitioner-Association has been annexed to the writ appeal as Annexure A-2. Under such circumstances this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. The impugned judgment and order has been put to our strict scrutiny and discreet survey. We have also thoroughly gone into the entire records made available including the affidavit filed by the State Respondent. Under such circumstances this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. The impugned judgment and order has been put to our strict scrutiny and discreet survey. We have also thoroughly gone into the entire records made available including the affidavit filed by the State Respondent. It is also seen after careful perusal of the records that no rejoinder against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State has been forthcoming from the end of the Appellant Association. From a close reading of the statements and averments made in the affidavit on behalf of the State of Manipur, it is manifestly revealed that categorical stand of the State was that the incumbents who had been promoted were much senior to the members of the Appellant Association. 8. We also find that the writ Court while rejecting the Appellant's prayer meticulously considered the entire aspects of the matter basically in paragraphs No. 25 26 and 27 of the impugned judgment, by giving a well considered and in depth reasoning highlighted the relevant facts and legal position to hold that the members of the Association were much junior and they were not entitled to get the seniority. 9. The paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 of the impugned common judgment may be extracted as under: 25. I have perused the file regarding the DPC proceeding as placed before me by the learned Advocate General. On a perusal of the minutes of the DPC, it appears that the DPC has considered all persons who comes under the zone of consideration. It further appears from the minutes of the DPC that vacancies from 1993 onwards in the post of headmasters and assistants headmasters have been worked out by the Department and the DPC after considering the eligibility, suitability and merit and integrity of the candidates recommended the names for promotion to the post of Headmasters of Junior High Schools and Asstt. Headmaster of High Schools. It further appears that the list of teachers were placed before who comes under the zone of consideration. It is true there may be error in the information furnished before the DPC due to communication gap. Headmaster of High Schools. It further appears that the list of teachers were placed before who comes under the zone of consideration. It is true there may be error in the information furnished before the DPC due to communication gap. It is also possible that latest information has not been received by the Zonal Offices situated in hill areas from Inspectorate situated in more difficult areas, but those errors have been rectified by the Government by cancelling the appointment of persons who are not in service because of retirement, resignation and death. The present writ Petitioners are in no way affected by the recommendation of the DPC. The DPC recommended the Asstt. Graduate Teachers of converted Schools who has entered in the service upto 4.10.1974. The Schools of the Petitioners were upgraded in the year 1980 and from that date they were recognized as in-charge of the Schools or headmaster-in-charge. 26. The learned Advocate General submitted that from the year 1974 to 1980 more than thousands of teachers have been appointed in the Asstt. Graduate Teacher posts and all these persons are senior to the Petitioners. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate General that Md. Majij Ali whose name appears at SI. No. 28 of Annexure-X/2 is an Asstt. Graduate Teacher of a converted school. He entered in the post of Asstt. Graduate Teacher on 1.11.1964 and consequently the DPC has recommended his name for promotion and Govt. has accordingly appointed him in the promotional post by the Annexure-A/B & A/9. It is therefore submitted by the learned AG that the Petitioners who are junior to more than 1000 (one thousand) Asstt. Graduate Teachers in the converted Schools cannot be appointed to the post of headmaster of Junior High School. If that is done, it will deprive more than thousands of senior Asstt. Graduate Teachers thereby inviting hundreds of unnecessary litigations. The learned AG consequently submitted that there is no illegality in the DPC proceedings and whatever error has been made the same has been corrected by the Govt. and since the Petitioner are in no way affected by the recommendation of the DPC, they are not entitled to challenge the validity of the recommendation of the DPC. There is sufficient force in the submission of the learned Advocate General. It appears that there are more than thousands of Asstt. and since the Petitioner are in no way affected by the recommendation of the DPC, they are not entitled to challenge the validity of the recommendation of the DPC. There is sufficient force in the submission of the learned Advocate General. It appears that there are more than thousands of Asstt. Graduate Teachers in the converted Schools who are senior to the Petitioners, therefore if the Petitioners are appointed as Headmasters on regular basis, then an injustice will be made on those thousands of Asstt. Graduate Teachers who are senior to the Petitioners in the converted Schools. Therefore, I do not like to interfere with the DPC proceedings. In view of the fact that the recommendation of the DPC in no way affect the interest of the Petitioners, except one Petitioner none of them even come within the zones of consideration for promotion to the post of headmaster in converted Jr. High Schools. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above, I am of the view that since the recommendation has been corrected by cancelling the appointments of all persons who are not in services, I do not find any ground to interfere with the recommendation of the DPC. 27. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above I am of the clear view that the judgment and order of this High Court dated 11.9.1990 directed the Govt. to give the benefits of the pay, status of headmasters to the Petitioners on the principles of equal pay for equal work. There was no direction of the Government to appoint the Petitioners to the post of headmasters. Consequently, so long the Petitioners will discharge their duties as Headmasters in-charge of the upgraded High Schools, they are entitled to get the pay of Headmasters and as soon as they are replaced by regularly appointed headmasters, they must be reverted to the original posts of Asstt. Graduate Teacher and will be entitled to the pay of Asstt. Graduate Teachers. After considering the submissions of the learned Counsel of all the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the present application and all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed, but under the facts and circumstances I make no order as to costs. All connected Misc. applications are also disposed of accordingly. 10. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed, but under the facts and circumstances I make no order as to costs. All connected Misc. applications are also disposed of accordingly. 10. Be that as it may, since the preliminary objection has been raised pertaining to the maintainability of the instant writ appeal and having found sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Sharma learned State counsel as regards maintainability of this writ appeal being, presented by a non-registered Association, we are of the firm view that this appeal is not maintainable as an unregistered body is not permitted to assail the grievance of the members of the Association which lacks legal entity. In arriving at such decision we are guided by the judicial authorities laid down in the following decisions: (i) Mahinder Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, (1995) 1 SCC 85 . (Para 3) (ii) All Manipur DIC Supervisors' Association v. State of Manipur and Ors.2001 (1) GLT 374. (Para 2) 11. In the case of Mahinder Kumar Gupta (supra) the Apex Court held in Para 6 as under: 6. ...The, second writ petition stands liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the Association cannot file a writ petition as it has no fundamental right under Article 32 of the Constitution. 12. In the case of All Manipur DIC Supervisors' Association (supra) the Apex Court held in Para 14 as under: 14. This is not a public interest litigation. Admittedly, the Petitioner-association is not registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or under any other statute. A technical point is taken in paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in-opposition that the Petitioner Association, not being a registered body is not a legal entity which can sue or be sued in its name. On this point, in paragraph 3 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated "the Petitioner Association having disclosed the names and service particulars of its members in an Appendix to the writ petition, has got legal entity to sue and be sued in law, though it has not been registered." Obviously, such disclosure does not confer any legal entity on the Petitioner Association to maintain a legal proceeding. Nothing has been placed before me to show that the Petitioner Association, though not a legal entity is permitted by any specific statutory provision to sue or be sued in its collective capacity. Mr. T. Nandakumar, learned Advocate General, submits that the Petitioner Association, not being a registered body having legal entity, this writ petition filed by its not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Where a number of individuals are affected by an official act, they can ordinarily bring a legal proceeding to challenge that act only if all such persons joined in the proceedings by name. In the instant case, all the members of the Petitioner Association who have been adversely affected by the impugned Government order, Annexure-A/14 dated 13.1.1994 ought to have joined in the writ petition by name. It has been held in DGOF Employees' Association v. Union of India reported in AIR 1969 Cal 149 at 151 that: 9. In the case of a body incorporated by law, the corporate body acquires a legal personality of it self and is as such entitled to maintain legal proceedings. But an unincorporated association has no legal personality and it is nothing but an aggregation of its members who can only bring legal proceedings in their individual capacity. Even when all of them are affected by an official act, they can challenge that only if all the members join in the proceedings by name, the association, in such a case, cannot maintain an application under Article 226 or other legal proceeding in its own name, as has been established by a number of decisions. 15. Even where an association is permitted by law to bring a legal proceeding, it can bring an application under Article 226only when its rights as a collective body as distinguished from the aggregate rights of its members are affected by the act challenged in the proceedings Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 . 13. Consequently this appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed