BISWANATH SOMADDER,J. - (1.) Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application, it appears that 215 individuals, having no jural relationship between them, have joined as co-petitioners to take out the instant writ petition. The only common linking thread which appears from the pleadings is that all of them have been engaged since 1987, either as Sanchalaks or Mukhya Prerak Coordinators under the scheme of 'Continuing Education' in Birbhum, West Bengal, and their rights have been affected in view of a subsequent change of policy, upon introduction of a new education programme, namely, 'Sakshar Bharat Programme'.
(2.) The facts, as stated above, demonstrate that the writ petitioners may have identical cause of action. However, even if there exists a cause of action, such cause of action is required to be espoused by the writ petitioners independently and not collectively by joining as co-petitioners. They had all been engaged separately and individually. Simply having a common grievance is not sufficient for joinder of cause of action in order to maintain the instant writ petition as co-petitioners in the absence of any jural relationship between them. This is not a case where the principles analogous to Order 1 Rule VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure have been invoked. In such circumstances, the writ petition shall stand dismissed in so far as writ petitioner nos. 2 to 215 are concerned, with liberty to the said petitioners to file afresh independently based on the same cause of action, if so advised.
(3.) The writ petition shall now survive in respect of the writ petitioner no. 1 as the sole petitioner.;