JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

1.The aforesaid mandamus appeals are filed assailing the common Judgment on 09.08.2019 passed by the Single Bench dismissing the writ petitions filed by the several writ petitioners challenging the recruitment process initiated in the year 2009 for several posts of Assistant Teachers in various primary and junior basic schools.

2. All the writ petitioners of their respective writ petitions filed the aforesaid mandamus appeals raising the identical and similar points and therefore, an order was passed to hear out of the aforesaid mandamus appeals analogously. All the appearing Counsel are uniform in their submissions that though the writ petitioners of their respective writ petitions have obtained different marks in the said recruitment process but the point of law involved in the instant appeals are identical and therefore, the mandamus appeal being FMA 244 of 2021 be taken into consideration to decide the aforesaid points.

3. Though the writ petitions were filed by the respective appellants assailing the recruitment process but have decided to squeeze the point which we would later on indicate and therefore, the zone of consideration becomes limited and mainly revolved around the provisions of the relevant Rules applicable in this regard and its interpretation in juxtaposition with the law declared by the Apex Court in catena of decisions.

4. Sworn of unnecessary details the facts emanating from the aforesaid appeal (FMA 244 of 2021) is adumbrated as prelude to the litigations and the points urged in respective writ petitions. By virtue of a notification dated 3^rd December, 2009 issued and published by the District Primary School Council, Hooghly, the recruitment to the several posts of the Assistant Teachers in the various primary and junior basic schools within the said District was notified and the application was invited from the eligible aspiring candidates. Admittedly, the writ petitioners applied in terms of the said notification having the eligibility qualifications as indicated therein and participated in the examination, written or oral. The panel was published of the successful candidates in or about the months of January, 2010 which does not include the name of the writ petitioners. According to the Writ Petitioners, the panel of the successful candidates uploaded and published by the District Primary School Council revealed that 11 candidates were awarded additional marks for having undergone a teachers training course not recognised by the National Council for Technical Education (NCTE) but was set up by the State and, therefore, awarding of an additional marks is per se illegal and impermissible. Immediately, the appellant of the instant appeal approached the Writ Court in WP no. 5501 (W) of 2013 raising such issues and the writ petition was disposed of on 25^th April, 2013 directing the Chairman, DPSC Hooghly to dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order. Simultaneously, the Commissioner of the School Education was also directed to pass an appropriate order on receipt of the reasoned order passed by the Chairman of the said DPSC. In compliance of the said direction passed in the said writ petition, the Chairman of the DPSC vide its order dated July 20, 2013 rejected the claim of the appellant solely on the ground that he had secured far less marks than the last empanelled candidate in the untrained category.

5. The Writ Petitions which were under consideration before the Single Bench are filed by the several unsuccessful candidates assailing the said decision of the Chairman of the DPSC with the primary contention that the aforesaid 11 candidates, who are also arraigned as a respondent in the said writ petition as well as the instant appeal, could not have been awarded an additional marks on the basis of the teachers training courses which they had undergone in an institution set up by the State and not recognised by the NCTE. It is a uniform stand of all the appellants tha