JUDGMENT

Shekhar B. Saraf, J. - Several writ petitions have been filed in relation to the same issue, and therefore, this batch of writ petitions have been taken up and heard conjointly.

2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioners pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents, particularly the Respondent no. 4, namely, the Secretary of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") to allow the writ petitioners to add their enhanced training qualifications, as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, 2016 in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Upper Primary Level of schools in pursuance of the Appointment Notification dated September 23, 2016 as well as to consider their candidatures as trained candidates as per verifications to be submitted online in terms of the latest verification notification dated December 28, 2020.

3. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submits that since the process of selection has been set aside after four years from the initial date of such advertisement, dated 23rd September, 2016 by an order dated December 11, 2020, candidates who have enhanced their qualifications should be allowed to avail the benefit of the same. He further submits that it is the responsibility of the recruiting authority that is, the Commission, to get the best talent available in the market and that such a proposed course of action was in furtherance of public interest.

4. Mr. Bhattacharya buttresses his arguments by relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Bakshi & Anr. v- State of Jammu & Kashmir & ors., reported in (2019) 3 SCC 511. He further relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijay Kr. Pandey v- Arvind Kr. Rai & Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 611 to support his argument that during the intervening period of four years, candidates would have acquired enhanced qualifications, and accordingly, these enhanced qualifications should be considered by the Commission.

5. Mr. Bhattacharya thereafter places reliance on a recent unreported coordinate Bench decision of this Court, passed by Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. in W.P.A. No. 9597 of 2019 (Aktarul Islam Kayal & ors. v- State of West Bengal & Ors.) to submit that such judgment has set aside the process of recruitment in the present selection process and does not in any way limit or disallow the use of enhanced qualifications in the fresh process of selection, as directed by the Court. He specifically makes reference to paragraph 30 of the said judgment.

6. Mr. Bhattacharya has also fairly submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. v- Chander Shekhar and Anr., reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 is the guiding precedent with regard to the ratio that a person acquiring the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. The principle underlying the ratio of such judgment is the fact that "an advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that for if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself."

7. However, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the present case marginally differs from the judgment rendered in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) . He distinguishes