JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, J.

1. The appeal is arising out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10th July, 2025 in a writ petition in which the prayer of the writ petitioner for consideration of their candidature in terms of a recruitment notification dated 30th May, 2025 being Memo No.1092/7-16/CSSC/ESTT/2025 was rejected.

2. The petitioners are admittedly over-aged candidates, as a result whereof they could not submit their application in terms of the aforesaid recruitment notification.

3. Mr. Samim Ahammed, the learned Advocate representing the appellants/petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are not coming either under the category of tainted or untainted candidates as classified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 3rd April, 2025 passed by Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.9586 of 2024 (State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee).

4. It is submitted that the petitioners are having no grievance relating to the benefit of relaxation granted to the untainted and differently abled candidates of 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016 (1st SLST 2016)in Class IX-XII hereinafter referred to. Mr. Samim has submitted that by initiating fresh recruitment process on the basis of the recruitment notification dated 30th May, 2025 recruitment are now required to be made only in respect of post earmarked for 1st SLST 2016, however, vacancies declared in the new recruitment process covers further vacancies which subsequently arose and the clubbing up of these vacancies are not permissible as it is against the spirit and direction of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3rd April, 2025 passed in Baisakhi Bhattacharyya (supra).

5. The relaxation of upper age limit as prescribed in paragraph 49 of the aforesaid judgment would also be applicable to the present writ petitioners who have acquired requisite qualification in the meantime but could not be considered under the present recruitment process of 2025 by reason of over-age. The stand on the same footing as untainted candidates protected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 49 of the said judgment. It is submitted that in view of the fact that they became eligible in the meantime and by reason of the entire recruitment process became held up due to various proceedings they cannot be deprived of the benefit of age relaxation and the State as well as the Commission are obliged to consider their candidature by relaxation of age.

6. The learned Counsel has referred to an order passed in the earlier round of litigation being WPA No.24394 of 2024 decided on 12th November, 2024 to argue that the learned Single Judge in the said proceeding held that the writ petition is pre-mature and hence this present writ application ought to have been decided in the background of the development that have taken place in the meantime and culminated in the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 3rd April, 2025. It is submitted that the declaration of further vacancies and not giving any relaxation to the writ petitioners/appellants are unjustified and arbitrary. The State and the Commission are responsible for the delay in the recruitment process thereby creating a hurdle and impediment to the appellants who became eligible in the meantime. Had there been any recruitment proceeding initiated in the meantime or soon after 2016 they would have been eligible to participate. This is an unfair and arbitrary conduct of the respondent authorities.

7. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Sachin & Ors. vc. Anurag Sharma & Ors., 2023 SCC Online Del 1545  paragraph 12 and a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma,  2022 (4) SCC 643  in support of his contention.

8. Mr. Ahmed, has submitted that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions are applicable in the present case and the benefit of relaxation of age bar should be extended to them.

9. The said