17.04.2026 28 sdas WPA 6908 of 2026 Sumitra Garai & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya Mr. Subhrajyoti Ghosh …. for the petitioners Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Ms. Pramiti Bandopadhyay Mr. Arka Kumar Nag Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh ….. for the WBCSSC 1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record. 2. The petitioners’ grievance is that the advertisement dated May 30, 2025 inviting applicants for participating in the process of SLST is unclear and ambiguous. 3. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the lack of clarity is primarily on account of the issue that it does not specify as to the categorization of the schools which could be considered for giving the marks on account of prior teaching experience. This is the limited challenge in this writ petition that the said advertisement lacks clarity and is ambiguous and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 4. Ms. Bandopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the Commission, submits that in terms of the 2 Notification dated May 29, 2025 bearing No. 764- SE/S/10M-03/2025, Schedule-II, it is clear and unequivocal that prior teaching marks would be considered for Government aided or Government sponsored schools on the basis of the number of years acquired through experience. 5. I have heard the advocates for the parties. This issue has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in MAT 315 of 2026 (Mokabber Hossain & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). This Court is bound by the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. I respectfully agree with the decision rendered by Their Lordships. 6. The issue of lack of clarity or the advertisement, being ambiguous, is sufficiently explained by the aforestated Notification of May 29, 2025. It is clear and unequivocal. In addition thereto, writ petition of this nature, filed at such a belated stage, cannot be entertained. The process had started sometime in May, 2025, and is presently sought to be challenged by a person who had participated in the same on the ground of lack of clarity. The Notification is clear and is in aid of the advertisement of May 30, 2025. There is no ambiguity in the Notification on account whereof prayer of the petitioners cannot be entertained. 3 7. In view of the aforestated, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 8. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)