D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner is, as urged by Sri Ashok Khare learned Counsel for the petitioner, a recognised union under the bye-laws whereof it is authorised to espouse cause of its members and incur expenses for the said purposes. Sri A.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents had taken a preliminary objection that this writ-petition is not maintainable at the behest of the petitioner. In reply thereto Sri Khare had relied on the decision in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India and Ors., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 298. He contends that on the basis of the retio decided in the said decision, the petitioner is eligible and entitle to espouse the cause of its numbers and as such this writ petition is maintainable. In answer to the contention of Sri Khare, Sri Mishra relies on a Full Bench decision in the case of Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and Ors. v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana and Anr., AIR 1984 Allahabad 46, and contends that pursuant to the Full Bench decision, a union or association has a right to espouse the cause of its number only on the conditions laid down therein. Sri Mishra, on the other hand, contends further that in the present case almost all the individual members of the union had initiated separate writ proceeding in order to secure their interest that they have been working in those post for which the advertisement impugned in the present writ petition has been issued. He refers to Annexure 5 to the writ petition wherein particulars of the writ petitions filed by 114 persons whose interest the union is espousing, has been specified.
(2.) In this writ petition, the advertisement contained in Annexure 14 has been challenged by Sri Khare on two-fold grounds. First, that after lapse of 12 years this being the first advertisement the backlog if any, can not be taken into account in respect of reservation of S.C., S.T. and Backward Classes and after the promulgation of Act No. 4 of 1994 of 1994 which came interoffice on 11.12.1983, the present recruitment being the first recruitment, it cannot be confined only to the case inasmuch as according to him it should be general selection and only when the post reserved for S.C., S.T. and backward classes remain vacant then only such a procedure can be adopted.
(3.) Since the preliminary question as to the maintainability of the writ petition has been taken, in my view, if only the writ petition is found maintainable then the other contention as raised by Sri Khare can be gone into. In para 17 of the decision in the case of Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar (supra), this Full Bench had considered the impact of the case of Akhil Bhartxya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) (supra) and had made the following observations : "According to these observations the concept of 'cause of action' and 'person aggrieved' has become obsolescent in some jurisdictions, like 'public interest litigation, by little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in Courts. In such a case alone an association of little Indians may be permitted to sue on their behalf. These observations graft an exception to the traditional rule of locus standi. They will not cover the case of an association suing on behalf of its members where its own interest are not affected and where its members do not answer the description of little Indians." Ultimately in para 20, this Court in its Full Bench had summarised as to in which circumstances such writ petition can be maintained by the association or unions.;