JUDGMENT :

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. Let an order of the Supreme Court dated December 04, 2014, passed in Writ Petitions (Civil) No. 39 of 2013, 3/51/257/258/206/824 of 2014 and 94/294 of 2012, be mentioned at the threshold. All these cases have been disposed of by the Supreme Court by dint of the said order. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 94 of 2012 is relevant, for the purpose of this judgment. Let the relevant portion of the said order dated December 04, 2014, be quoted, as follows: -

“4. In our opinion, this matter can be decided by the High Court under its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we transfer this matter before the Calcutta High Court for the consideration and early disposal after affording opportunity of hearing of both the parties.

5. Interim order dated 7^th November, 2013 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Writ Petition No. 1019 of 2013, which is pending consideration before the Calcutta High Court, shall continue in this writ petition as well till the final disposal of the matter by the High Court.

**** **** ***** *****

Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 94 of 2012, 294 of 2012, 3 of 2014, 51 of 2014, 257 of 2014, 258 of 2014, 206 of 2014, 824 of 2014 In view of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 39 of 2013 , all these writ petitions are disposed of in the same terms, observations and directions.”

2. Thus, the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 94 of 2012, having been transmitted to this Court, has subsequently been registered as W.P. No. 5361 (W) of 2015. Vide an order of this Court dated December 18, 2015, the writ petition has been directed not to be maintainable for the then petitioner No. 1/an unregistered teachers’ association, but maintainable only for the other petitioner Sri Tarun Pan. The Court directed in the said order dated December 18, 2015 that particulars of the petition No.1/association shall stand deleted from the cause title.

3. The writ petitioner has been represented by Mr. Ashis Kr. Chowdhury. The respondent/West Bengal Central School Service Commission (in short “SSC”), though appeared initially through the learned Advocate Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, but at the later stage of hearing, it has not turned up any further. Hence, hearing of the case has been finally concluded and closed in absence of the respondent/SSC.

4. Subject matter of challenge in this case is a vacancy notification dated December 29, 2011 published by the SSC. According to the writ petitioner, the same is contrary to the law and therefore, is liable to be set aside. He, therefore, has prayed for setting aside of the said notification dated December 29, 2011; the petitioner submits that relaxation of condition prescribing essential qualification, as afforded by the authority has transgressed and violated the procedure prescribed under the law. That, it has been an arbitrary exercise of power and jurisdiction by the authority. He has prayed for the relief that all available trained persons be appointed as against the available vacant 55000 posts; for this the upper age limit of the trained persons be relaxed in order to enable them to be appointed; that the authority may be directed to follow Schedule I of the notification dated April 28, 2003, for appointment of assistant teachers in the State.

5. The background facts of these may be summerised in the following manner:-

The vacancy notification dated December 29, 2011 has been published allegedly in violation of the guidelines of National Council for Teacher Education (in short NCTE). The petitioner says that the minimum qualification mandatory for appointment of teachers in upper primary, secondary and higher secondary schools, as per NCTE guidelines is the B.Ed. degree, that is the training qualification. The writ petitioner’s allegation is that the respondent authority has misutilised the provision made in notification of Government of India dated June 01, 2011, in which relaxation of essential mandatory minimum qualification, has been allowed on certain co