JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. All these petitions being WP(C) 988 of 2017 [Smt. Mira Bhowmik (Saha) vs. The State of Tripura and others], WP(C) 989 of 2017 [Sri Rajesh Chandra Nag vs. The State of Tripura and others], WP(C) 990 of 2017 [Sri Goutam Bakshi vs. The State of Tripura and others], WP(C) 992 of 2017 [Sri Mithun Debnath vs. The State of Tripura and others], WP(C) 889 of 2017 [Sri Rakhal Chandra Das vs. The State of Tripura and others] and WP(C) 890 of 2017 [Sri Subrata Saha vs. The State of Tripura and others] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as a common question wades through all these writ petitions. 3. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents, particularly the respondent No.4, i.e. the District Education Officer who refused to countersign the experience certificate for the post of Student Counsellor etc. 4. Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that by dint of the Notification under No. F.1(1-20)SE-E(N/G)/2017 dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) the Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura invited applications from eligible Indian nationals permanently residing in Tripura for consideration of appointment to the categories of posts, namely, Academic Counsellor, Student Counsellor, School Library Assistant, Hostel Warden and Programme Assistant. The petitioners intended to file application for the post of Student Counsellor etc. By the said notification, a format of the application has been provided. In Sl. No. 20 it has been provided as follows: “20. Details of experience: - (Certificate to the issued by the Head of offices/DDOs with Counter-signature of the District Education Officer)” Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel has submitted that the experience certificate is issued by the Head of office/DDO but in the format it has been made mandatory that such certificate shall be countersigned by the District Education Officer, the respondent No.4 herein. The petitioners obtained the experience certificate and rushed to the respondent No.4 but the respondent No.4 did not countersign the said certificate without providing any reason whatsoever. As a result the petitioners could not submit their application. It has been submitted by Mr. The petitioners obtained the experience certificate and rushed to the respondent No.4 but the respondent No.4 did not countersign the said certificate without providing any reason whatsoever. As a result the petitioners could not submit their application. It has been submitted by Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel that the experience certificate issued by the Head of Officer/DDO was duly submitted before 10.07.2017 but the said District Education Officer refused to countersign those certificates. For that reason alone, the petitioners could not file the applications in time. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel has further submitted that the experience certificate was obtained much in advance but for dilly dallying tactic of the respondents No.4, they could not file the application as the respondent No. 4 refused to countersign it. 5. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on instruction of the respondents has submitted that the last date of filing application was 10th July, 2017. The petitioners did not approach this Court in time. Now for oblique purpose the petitioners have approached this Court. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel has further submitted that the Education (School) Department will not extend the time for receiving the application in terms of the notification dated 27.06.2017. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that even no letter addressing the District Education Officer is available in the writ petitions or for that matter, any evidence that the petitioner had approached the respondent no.4. 6. Even though this Court is not quite satisfied what necessitated the respondents to ask for the counter signature of the District Education Officer, but since the last date for receiving of the applications in terms of the notification dated 27.06.2017 is over, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners. Moreover, there is not a piece of paper to demonstrate that the respondent No.4 did receive the Experience Certificate or for his dilly dallying, the notice of the higher authority was drawn. Even no representation to the competent authority is available with this writ petition. Hence, the fate of the writ petition is foreclosed. 7. In view of this, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, in any event, if time is extended for submission of the application in terms of the said notification in respect of these posts, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court. There shall be no order as to costs.