The petitioners in these proceedings were all candidates for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division), who participated in a selection process undertaken in the year 2010. The advertisement inviting applications for these posts was issued by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, numbered 3 of 2010, and date of issue was 6th March, 2010. In W.P. No. 8446 (W) of 2011, originally there were eleven petitioners. During pendency of hearing of these proceedings, three of them were given appointment and hence they withdrew from this litigation. Two other petitioners being the petitioner nos. 9 and 11 also subsequently chose not to prosecute the writ petition. Their names as petitioners thus were deleted by direction of this Court.

The controversy in these two writ petitions revolve around interpretation of the expression “vacancy” as specified in the said advertisement, as the case of the petitioners is that the authorities did not fill up all the vacancies, as advertised. The specification relating to vacancies, which was advertised, reads:-

“Vacancies:

(a) The number of vacancies arising in 2010 due to retirement/promotion of W.B.J.S. officers – 35 (Unreserved – 23, BC –