JUDGMENT :

1.The aforesaid two matters are taken up together having filed against the similar and identical order.

2. The dispute pertains to the recruitment process initiated way back in the year 2009 for the post of Assistant Teacher in the District of Malda. The spate of litigations in relation to other Districts including the District of Malda came to be filed before this Court and ultimately the bunch of writ petitions pertaining to the District Malda were decided by the Single Bench on 26^th April, 2024.

3. It was categorically observed in the said Judgment that all the candidates who were called for the interview in the said recruitment process and have filed the writ petitions before this Court till 25^th April, 2024, they shall be entitled to appointments against the existing and future vacancies. It was further observed that even the applications for addition of party having filed before the said timeline, the proposed added candidates shall stand on the same footing with that of the writ petitioners and shall be extended the same benefit. The petitioner’s claim was rejected by the Court solely on the ground that his writ petition came to be filed beyond the deadline set up in the said order.

4. Indubitably the writ petition was affirmed on 25^th April 2024 but was filed on 3^rd May, 2024. Precisely the date of filing was considered by the Single Bench in arriving at the conclusion that the benefit of the order dated 26^th May, 2024 passed in WPA 25712 of 2022 cannot be extended. It is revealed in course of the hearing that though the recruitment process for the year 2009 was initiated in the year 2010 but because of the procedural hassles and the decision taken by the authorities on the basis of several litigations filed before the Court and orders passed therein, the panel of the successful candidate was published in the year 2021. The writ petitions came to be filed on and from the year 2022 and some in the year 2024 as well.

5. The moot question involved in the instant appeal whether an affirmation of a writ petition would constitute the filing of the writ petition or in other words the filing date of the writ petition would relate back to the date of affirmation of the said writ petitions. The answer is unambiguous and simple that the proceeding shall be treated to have been filed on a date when it is presented for its acceptance and assigned the appropriate number by the department. There is no rule as of now that the filing date would be treated on the basis of date of affirmation. There is no constrain on the part of the litigant in not filing the legal proceedings before the Court after the same is affirmed if he chose not to pursue the matter any further. Taking a view that the presentation of the writ petition before the competent authority to receive the same would be treated to have filed on the date when the affirmation is done, would frustrate the very purpose of the institution of the proceeding on a particular date and, therefore, this Court does not find any substance in this regard.

6. The reliance placed upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & ors. reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 by the appellant does not have any relevance to a clenching issue involved in the instant matter. It is beyond cavil of doubt that once the benefit is extended to a person, such benefit should also be extended to all persons who stands on a same pedestal. The act of discrimination is always viewed seriously as infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, an exception is carved out in relation to an approach to the Court at belated stage. In the said Judgment the Apex Court has also held that if there is a delay and laches attributable to the conduct of the litigant, even if it may have made out a case that he is a similarly circumstance persons that of the other, the Court may deny such relief in the following:

“22. The