JUDGMENT :

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 8^th April, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being WP 28256 (W) of 2017.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are that the writ petitioners/appellants herein participated in the 12^th Regional Level Selection Test (in short, RLST) for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. Upon emerging to be successful in the selection process the appellants were empanelled but they were not called for counseling and were not offered any letter of recommendation for appointment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred a writ petition being WP 34996 (W) of 2013 which was disposed of by an order dated 17^th December, 2013 directing inter alia that ‘if it is found that the writ petitioners have crossed all hurdles i.e. TET examination, subject and interview in that event the authorities are directed to call the writ petitioners in counselling and recommend them for giving appointment. It appears that the petitioners’ name are appearing in the combined merit list’. Challenging the said order, the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (in short, the Commission) and others preferred a mandamus appeal being MAT 1257 of 2014 which was disposed of by an order dated 15^th March, 2017, setting aside the order impugned in the said appeal. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants preferred a Special Leave Petition (in short, SLP) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the same on 4th September, 2017 observing inter alia that ‘the petitioners at liberty to move the High Court so as to ascertain whether any decision has been taken not to fill up the vacancies from the existing panel’. Thereafter the appellants preferred a fresh writ petition being WP 28256 (W) of 2017 but the same was dismissed by an order dated 8th April, 2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. Mr. Kabir, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that as the appellants, namely, Ajijul Islam (in short, Ajijul) and Bijoy Kumar Ruidas (in short, Bijoy) emerged to be successful in the 12^th RLST, they were empanelled by the Commission after adding the marks they have obtained in the written examination, evaluation of academic qualification and personality test (hereinafter referred to as PT). They accordingly secured berth in the panel as defined under the Rule 2(f) of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 (in short, the 2007 Rules). A perusal of such definition would reveal that the names of candidates empanelled should be equal to the number of vacancies declared. Thus, the Commission was under an obligation to call the appellants for counseling and to recommend their names for appointment.

4. According to him, under the 2007 Rules there is no provision towards preparation of any ‘combined merit list’ (hereinafter referred to as CML). Rule 12(6) of the 2007 Rules inter alia provides that each Regional Commission is required to prepare a subjectwise, mediumwise, categorywise and genderwise list of candidates on the basis of the marks obtained by the individual candidates in the written examination and evaluation of academic qualification. From amongst them, the candidates coming within the zone of 1.5 times the number of actual vacancies shall be called for PT. Thereafter in terms of Rule 12(8) each Regional Commission upon adding the marks obtained in the written examination, evaluation of the academic qualification and PT would prepare a panel of candidates and each panel shall include names equal to the number of vacancies on 1:1 basis together with a waiting list on 1:0.1 basis. The appellants on the basis of merit were included in a panel and accordingly earned a right to be called for counseling. They have been arbitrarily denied of such right by the Commission contending inter alia that the appellants found pl