JUDGMENT:- I.P. MUKERJI, J. 1. This writ has been filed by eighteen writ petitioners. They are all aspirants for the post of primary teachers in the district of Purulia. The eighteen writ petitioners have some academic qualifications and had registered themselves with the local employment exchange in the district of Purulia from 1985 to 1995. On 13th January 2006 the Chairman, District Primary School Council, Purulia intimated the said district employment exchange of about 1760 vacant posts of primary school teachers and requested them to sponsor names ten times more than the number of vacancies, for filling up the posts, according to the relevant rules. The cutoff date mentioned in the requisition was 6th February 2006. More names than ten times that number were sent by this employment exchange to the Council. Around 23,000 (twenty three thousand) names were sponsored. Before anything further was done with this selection process, on 5th October 2006, a further 792 (seven hundred ninety two) names were sponsored by that employment exchange and forwarded to the Chairman, District Primary School Council, Purulia with the remark that those names could not be sent earlier because of oversight. The first list of names had been sent under a memo dated 5th May 2006 by that employment exchange. However, the school disregarded such list on the ground that such list had been sent after the cutoff of date. Challenging this action the writ petitioners have filed the present writ application. By an interim order dated 3rd December 2009 all the writ petitioners were allowed to write the entrance examination. They have all written the entrance examination. In this writ application the writ petitioners claim consideration for appointment on the basis of such participation in the examination. The Primary School Council has advanced very elaborate arguments which have been fully adopted by the learned counsel appearing for the State. It has been submitted on their behalf that the vacancy was treated as of 2006. An interim order was passed by my brother Soumitra Pal, J. in an earlier writ application W.P. No. 16121(w) of 2009 by some other aspirants for the said posts on 23rd September 2009, restraining cancellation of the 2006 selection process and filling up of those posts by the Primary School Council otherwise than, from amongst the 2006 candidates. An interim order was passed by my brother Soumitra Pal, J. in an earlier writ application W.P. No. 16121(w) of 2009 by some other aspirants for the said posts on 23rd September 2009, restraining cancellation of the 2006 selection process and filling up of those posts by the Primary School Council otherwise than, from amongst the 2006 candidates. The order reads: “………..So far as the prayer for interim order is concerned, as held in this order, since the vacancies occurred in the year 2006 and anticipated vacancies in the next twelve months were taken up as total vacancies, as postulated under Rule 8(3) these vacancies from a slot by themselves; and as the petitioners, whose names were requisitioned in 2006 purusant to the request by the Primary School Council had submitted their bio-data and, therefore, come under the selection procedure under Rule 9(1), in my view, a prima facie case has been made out for granting an interim order. Therefore, let there be an interim order restraining the respondents from cancelling the selection process initiated in 2006 under the unamended Rules for the post of Primary School Teachers and from filling up the vacancies for which the selection process was initiated in 2006 by any process other than from amongst the candidates who had submitted their bio-data in 2006, Liberty to mention upon notice. After judgment is delivered, Mr. Kar, learned advocate for the State respondents prays for stay of operation of the order. Prayer is considered and is refused.” This interim order was confirmed by the final order dated 24th December 2009 which is still subsisting, as submitted. Therefore, such order has become final. These vacancies have to be filled up according to the 2006 vacancies. The learned counsel for the Primary School Council and the State have submitted that since these names were sponsored by the employment exchange after the cutoff date specified in the requisition, such names should not be considered at all. The learned counsel appearing for the Primary School Council has also cited the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors.-v -State of Orissa & Ors., reported in SLR 6(2009) 483 to argue that these writ petitioners have been biding their time and have approached the court speculatively. I have considered the rival contentions. The learned counsel appearing for the Primary School Council has also cited the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors.-v -State of Orissa & Ors., reported in SLR 6(2009) 483 to argue that these writ petitioners have been biding their time and have approached the court speculatively. I have considered the rival contentions. There is an unreported judgment of a division bench of our court in Sanjit Kumar Mandal and others -v -The State of West Bengal & ors., F.M.A. No. 894 of 2007, C.A.N. No. 9357 of 2006, M.A.T. No. 4821 of 2006 on 21st July 2008 on an identical situation where names were not sponsored due to inadvertence. There, the division bench said: “Selection process involves written test followed by vivavoce. Admittedly, the written test has not been conducted as yet. When the sponsoring authorities are admitting that the names of these petitioners could not be sponsored due to inadvertence, we feel that justice will be sub-served if the District Primary School Council is directed to permit these petitioners to participate in the selection process for recruitment in the post of primary school teachers. We, therefore, allow the appeal in part and direct the Chairman, District Primary School Council, Purulia, to permit the writ petitioners to participate in the selection process for recruitment in the post of primary school teachers in the district of Purulia.” Now, this judgment is subsisting. There is a specific observation in that judgment that the interests of justice would be sub-served if the candidates who were inadvertently not sponsored by the employment exchange were to participate in the selection process. That, in my opinion, is the ratio of that judgment and that ratio is binding upon me. Neither has the above judgment of my brother Soumitra Pal, J. holding that the 2006 selection process will apply, been reversed. The interim order in that matter was made on 23rd September 2009 and the final order confirming such interim order was made on 24th December 2009. This writ application was filed after the interim order but before the final order was passed. The interim order in that matter was made on 23rd September 2009 and the final order confirming such interim order was made on 24th December 2009. This writ application was filed after the interim order but before the final order was passed. Now, if neither the interim order nor the final order is set aside or modified, but on the contrary subsists, in my opinion, the writ petitioners, on the basis of the findings in the interim order as well as the final order that the 2006 selection process would apply, were well within their rights to file and pursue this writ application. This application cannot be considered as delayed or speculative. In those circumstances the decision in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors.-v-State of Orissa & Ors., reported in SLR 6(2009)483 has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. As I have already said, I am bound by the said judgment of the Division Bench of our Court, I would allow this writ application by directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to appoint the writ petitioners as primary school teachers, if they have qualified on merits in the selection process, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, to be provided upon complying with all formalities.