SATYA BRATA SANYAL, J.

1. The petitioners, who are matric trained from the institutions in the state of West Bengal are desirous of issuance of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider their case or appointment to the post advertised on 14.5.1981 (Annexure-1).

2. FACTS : On 14.5.1981 an advertisement was issued (Annexure-l) for the post of ten teachers having qualifications B.Sc. ISc, B.A. I.A. and Matric or equivalent trained petitioner No. 1 passed his I.A. examination from L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga, in the year 1976 and took training examination from Junior Basic Training Institute, Darjeeling in the year 1978-79 (Annexure-2/1). Petitioner No.2 similarly having passed I.A. from L.N. Mithila University in the year 1978 took training from Junior Basic Training Institute, Kalimpong (Annexure 2/2) whereas petitioners 3 to 5 passed their Matriculation examination from the Bihar School Examination Board and got training from junior basic Training Institute, Kalimpong (Annexures 2/3 to 2/5). The petitioner having conformed to the basic requirements for the interview applied to the posts advertised and they having been found qualified were called for interview. It is said that they were called for interview. It is said that they were enlisted as successful candidates as would be found in the waiting list maintained in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Purnea. It is also said that even though they were issued to all the successful candidates except those, like the petitioners, who obtained their training from the State of West Bengal it may be stated here that the training institutes at kalimpong and Darjeeling are run by the Education Directorate, West Bengal, and, therefore, they are not private institutes. The petitioners having come to know that even though they were enlisted they were not being given appointments made representation before the District Superintendent of Education and it is said that the District Superintendent of Education told them that they could not be given appointment because they are not trained in the State of Bihar. On 15.5.85 a detailed representation was filed (Annexure-4) where it was contended that the stand of the State that persons trained from West Bengal cannot be given letters of appointment was wholly illegal, They draw the attention of the authorities to the decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2619 of 1980 decided on 26.7.83 where this court took the view that no material has been brought on the record to show that the Government does not recognise the degree granted by the institutes of West Bengal and/or they are not suitable degree for the purpose of appointment as trained teachers, Merely because the length of training in Bihar is a little more is not relevant in relation to the degrees conferred by the two States the petitioner thereafter also sent reminders to their representation favoured with any reply were constrained to move this Court for the relief already above.

3. According to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, refusal to consider the case of his clients is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and is contrary to the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioners applied for being appointed to the posts so advertised. The advertisement nowhere required that persons trained only in the state of Bihar would be considered. He further contended that there is no law and/or any declaration by the Education Directorate derecognizing degrees and diplomas granted by the institutes of West Bengal. In absence of such declaration the refusal to consider and recognise the degree granted by the Government Institutes of West Bengal is arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also relied on two cases decided by this Court, one of which is Mahendra Prasad Mehta V. The District Superintendent of Education and the other in Man Mohan Das Vs. The Director of Primary Education Bihar.

4. Lear