Joint writ maintainability and panel-based absorption cannot be defeated by technical objections where relief is severable and common issues arise.

A joint writ petition was treated as maintainable where the petitioners' claims arose from the same transaction, involved common questions of law and fact, and the relief was severable, so the proceeding was not defeated merely because some petitioners were said to be disentitled to relief. In relation to empanelled primary teachers included in the 1973 panel, the Court held that one panel prepared from two lists was not converted into separate panels merely by that structure, and the employer could not later dispute the panel's validity or the candidates' entitlement after acting on it by appointing them in deputation vacancies. The challenge to absorption in permanent vacancies was rejected, and the directions for consideration and absorption were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a joint writ petition was maintainable when some petitioners were claimed to be disentitled to relief; (ii) Whether the empanelled primary teachers included in the 1973 panel could be denied absorption in permanent vacancies on the ground that the list was impermissibly treated as an additional panel or that some of them had not been separately selected.

Issue (i): Whether a joint writ petition was maintainable when some petitioners were claimed to be disentitled to relief.

Analysis: The right to relief arose out of the same transaction and involved common questions of law and fact. The procedural principles applicable to joinder of parties in civil proceedings were treated as guiding writ practice, and the Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be defeated by technical objections where relief to the remaining petitioners could still be granted. The claim that the presence of some unsuccessful petitioners necessarily destroyed the entire proceeding was rejected, particularly where the relief was severable.

Conclusion: The joint writ petition was maintainable and did not fail merely because some petitioners were said to be disentitled to relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the empanelled primary teachers included in the 1973 panel could be denied absorption in permanent vacancies on the ground that the list was impermissibly treated as an additional panel or that some of them had not been separately selected.

Analysis: The Court found that the candidates were included in one panel prepared from two lists and that the mere existence of two lists did not create two separate panels. It further held that the District School Board could not dispute the validity of the panel or the eligibility of the candidates after having appointed them in deputation vacancies, and there was no basis to hold that the Advisory Committee had excluded the concerned candidates from selection. The challenge based on the alleged lack of authority to prepare an additional panel and the alleged absence of selection was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to be considered for absorption in permanent vacancies, and the challenge to their entitlement failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected, and the directions for consideration and absorption of the writ petitioners in permanent primary school vacancies were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A joint writ petition involving common questions of law and fact is not defeated merely because some petitioners are disentitled to relief, and an employer who has acted on a panel cannot later challenge the panel's validity or the candidates' entitlement on technical grounds where the relief sought is severable.

---