JUDGMENT : Supratim Bhattacharya, J. This bunch of appeals with their connected applications as well as the several writ petitions attached to this bunch of appeals involve a common question of fact and law. The common question is the claim of the private respondents to MAT 1594 of 2018 and MAT 953 of 2021 and the appellants in MAT 999 of 2021 along with the several writ petitioners in the writ petitions appearing for analogous consideration with, these appeals, pertains to grant of six marks against six wrong question and answer keys of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 2014 Examination conducted by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (for short, the Board). 2. By an initial Order dated 3rd of October, 2018 in the writ petition being WP 23006 (W) of 2017, a Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased to grant six marks to all the writ petitioners who arrived before the Court with the complaint that the six questions and answer keys of the TET 2014 paper were wrong. 3. The Secretary West Bengal Board of Primary Education was directed to award marks to the petitioner/petitioners who attempted the wrong question/options in the key answers of JGB question booklet series and after awarding marks if it is found that the petitioner/petitioners is/are otherwise eligible then the Secretary is further directed to take steps to give appointment to the petitioner/ petitioners in accordance with law against the available vacant post of assistant teacher/teachers. It has also been mentioned that the said order is strictly restricted in respect of the mentioned writ petitions. 4. The fact of the present case is that the respondents/petitioners had appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as TET 2014) along with other examinees. After the result of the said examination been declared these writ petitioners found themselves to have been unsuccessful in clearing the said examination which is one of the criteria which is required to be possessed for being eligible to be an assistant teacher. Being unsuccessful the writ petitioners challenged the assessment of the said examination. They further challenged the said question paper on the ground that some questions were wrong. 5. The Hon’ble Single Bench after hearing all the parties concerned appointed the Vice Chancellor Visva Bharati to examine correctness of the 11 questions of JGB Question Booklet series by experts. Being unsuccessful the writ petitioners challenged the assessment of the said examination. They further challenged the said question paper on the ground that some questions were wrong. 5. The Hon’ble Single Bench after hearing all the parties concerned appointed the Vice Chancellor Visva Bharati to examine correctness of the 11 questions of JGB Question Booklet series by experts. The Vice Chancellor of Visva Bharati submitted the expert report in respect of the 11 questions in two phases. After going through the aforesaid expert report, the Secretary of West Bengal Board of Primary Education was directed to take the steps as has been directed by the impugned orders. 6. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Hon’ble Single Bench stating that the impugned orders are strictly restricted in respect of writ petitions/petitioner, one Basir Ahmed filed an independent appeal with the leave of the Court for a declaration that the order passed by the Learned Single Judge operated in rem and not in personam. A coordinate Division Bench of this Court rejected the prayer for leave to appeal and being aggrieved by the said rejection a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Hon’ble Apex Court. By an order dated 1st of April 2019 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia granted liberty to file a writ petition which is to be heard along with the appeal filed by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (for short the Board), in order to bring finality to the dispute. As such this instant appeal. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2018 of the Hon’ble Single Bench passed in W.P. No. 23006 (W) of 2017 the appellant that is the Board has preferred the instant appeal being No. MAT No. 1594 of 2018. 8. Thereafter one Basir Ahmed preferred a leave to appeal before a concurrent Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court inter alia praying that the effect of the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.2018 should be in rem instead of being in personam. The concurrent Hon’ble Division Bench by an order dated 5.02.2019 dismissed the leave to appeal challenging the said order dated 5.02.2019. The concurrent Hon’ble Division Bench by an order dated 5.02.2019 dismissed the leave to appeal challenging the said order dated 5.02.2019. The said Basir Ahmed preferred a Special leave to Appeal being SLP (C) No. 5945 of 2019 the Hon’ble Supreme Court was inter alia pleased to dispose of the appeal requesting the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta to expeditiously dispose of the appeal filed by the Board together with other pending writ petitions on the same issue. 9. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the West Bengal Board of the Primary Education has during his submission stated that the present Mandamus appeal of the Board is from a common Judgment dated 03.10.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench by which several writ petitions were allowed in part by directing the Board to grant 6 marks to candidates of TET 2014 who had attempted the specified 6 questions where either the question or the answer key of the Board were found wrong by the expert appointed by the Court. This Judgment was confined to the writ petitioners and the Hon’ble Court directed that the vacancies were available, for those who could qualify after grant of additional marks, to be appointed. 10. He has further submitted that one Basir Ahmed has filed an application for leave to appeal against the Judgment dated 3.10.2018 praying that the said judgment should have been extended to all who have been participated in 2014. He has further submitted that the said seeking leave to appeal was dismissed and thereafter a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 1.04.2019 directed that Basir Ahmed may file a writ petition seeking similar relief as granted by the Hon’ble Single Judge which is to be heard along with the appeal of the Board and the Hon’ble Apex Court has also directed similar other writ petitions to be heard together. 11. 11. Learned Counsel has further submitted that two issues are required to be decided by this Hon’ble Court, first whether the direction of the Hon’ble Single Bench to allow the additional marks for the six wrong questions/answers keys to the candidates who had merely attempted those questions is correct and as to whether the said Judgment of the Hon’ble Single Bench should be restricted to the petitioners who were parties to the writ petitions on which such judgment was passed or whether the benefits of the same should be extended to all candidates who had participated in TET 2014. It has further been submitted that the Hon’ble Single Bench recorded in its order dated 27.7.2017 that the parties consent to abide by the report of the experts. 12. The Learned Counsel has further submitted that the direction for awarding additional marks does not appear to be wholly correct. He has further submitted that it is true that errors in the Question Booklet constitute a fault on the part of the Board for which the candidates must not suffer. He has further submitted that where the answer given by the candidates is incorrect as per the report of the expert then the said candidate must not be entitled to any additional marks for that particular question. He has further submitted that where a candidate had marked the option for which he or she has not been awarded marks as it did not tally with the answer key of the Board but the answer matches with the expert view then the said candidate must be entitled to additional marks. 13. Learned Counsel has submitted that awarding marks as directed by the Hon’ble Single Bench for merely attempting is contrary to and in consistent with the basic system of marking in any examination. Learned Counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Rishal vs Rajastahan Public Service Commission reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81 . Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed award of additional marks for the question attempted were the same as per the expert opinion. He has further submitted that it does not appear from the said Judgment as to whether such other candidates approached the High Court or not. 14. Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed award of additional marks for the question attempted were the same as per the expert opinion. He has further submitted that it does not appear from the said Judgment as to whether such other candidates approached the High Court or not. 14. He has also submitted that there are many other writ petitioner/applicants claiming similar reliefs which have been filed subsequently and are still being filed are highly belated and are fence sitters and such petitions are to be dismissed as laid down in the lis between UP Jal Nigam vs Jaswant Singh reported in 2006 11 SCC 464 . Learned Counsel has further submitted that those who may qualify on the basis of additional marks may be allowed to participate in future recruitment process by relaxing their upper age limit as a one-time measure in respect of the first recruitment process to be initiated hereafter. 15. The Learned Counsel has further submitted that the entire exercise of grant of additional marks is to be carried out on the basis of the digitized data of original OMR Sheet preserved as record of the Board since the original OMR Sheets of all the candidates numbering nearly 13 lakhs were destroyed by the Board. The Learned Counsel has further submitted that in MAT 953/2021 further directions has been sought for inter alia of the Hon’ble Court to the award of cost of Rs. 20 thousand to each of the 19 petitioners by the then President of the Board personally for the reason that the President is in the helm of affairs of the Board. 15. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioners has submitted that the Board has inter alia filed the instant appeal on the ground that the Hon’ble Single Bench has erred in fact as well as in law in directing the Board to award marks to the respondent writ petitioners who attempted the wrong questions/answers as because it is the contention of the Board that respondents /writ petitioners who attempted 6 wrong questions and have chosen the wrong key answers cannot claim marks for the said questions. The Learned Counsel has further submitted that if the Board chooses not to award any mark for attempting wrong questions and/ or answers it would be highly improper and arbitrary as the key answer provided by the Board has not been found to be correct by the experts but marks have been awarded to the candidates for the said questions who answered according to the Board’s key answer. 16. It has further been submitted by the Learned Counsel that when several candidates have been given marks for attempting wrong options given by the Board and have qualified the TET 2014 and many of them have also been appointed through the 2016 selection process as such denial to give marks to the petitioners and/or candidates who have attempted the wrong questions is absolutely violation of principle of equality and violates the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has further been submitted that subsequently the Board has initiated another selection process for recruitment of Primary Teachers from amongst the TET 2014 qualified candidates by publication of notice dated 23.12.2020. the Learned Counsel has further submitted that when the notification dated 23.12.2020 was published it was in the knowledge of the Board that 6 question and/ or options were wrong in the Question Booklet and several candidates who have answered according to the Boards key answers have been awarded marks for 6 wrong question though the answers were wrong as per the report of the Expert Committee. He has further submitted that in spite of knowledge of the said fact the Board did not choose to reevaluate the OMR Sheets of the TET 2014 and decided to proceed with the selection process. 17. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the respondent and other similarly placed candidates are being penalized for no fault on their part. The Learned Counsel has also submitted that the Board issued a further notification for publication of list of candidates for scrutiny verification and interview who have qualified TET 2014 after awarding 6 marks for attempting the wrong questions. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the respondent and other similarly placed candidates are being penalized for no fault on their part. The Learned Counsel has also submitted that the Board issued a further notification for publication of list of candidates for scrutiny verification and interview who have qualified TET 2014 after awarding 6 marks for attempting the wrong questions. The Learned Counsel has further submitted that by publication of the notice dated 20.12.2021 the Board has accepted the order dated 03.10.2018 and has awarded 6 marks to the candidates who have attempted the said wrong questions and now the Board cannot say that the candidates who have only correctly answered the 6 wrong questions as per the opinion of the experts will be entitled to get marks for the said wrong questions. 18. From the impugned Judgment it reveals that the Hon’ble Single Bench has directed the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Primary Education to award marks to the petitioner/petitioners who attempted the wrong question/options in the key answers of JGB Question Booklet series and after awarding marks if it is found that the petitioner/petitioners is/are otherwise eligible then the Secretary is further directed to take steps to give appointment to the petitioner/petitioners in accordance with law against the available vacant post of Assistant Teachers. It has also been stated that the order is strictly restricted in respect of writ petitions mentioned as above. 19. The crux of the instant appeals is as to whether the marks which were allotted for the wrong question/options are to be allotted to which category of the examinees if any and as to whether the said Judgment and order is to be treated in personam or in rem. 20. As regards to the aforementioned first issue this Court is of the view that those examinees who were definite about the said wrong questions/options which are under discussion might not have attempted those questions as because a person having the accurate knowledge knowing the correct answer would not have opt for any of the wrong option though the said examination did not have the provision for negative marking for giving wrong answers. As such there might have been examinees who knew the correct answer and had not attempted the same knowing the options given in the OMR sheet to be wrong. 21. As such there might have been examinees who knew the correct answer and had not attempted the same knowing the options given in the OMR sheet to be wrong. 21. As per the directions by the Hon’ble Single Bench only those examinees who attempted the wrong questions/options the key answers of JGB Question Booklet series are to be awarded marks so those examinees who abstained from answering the wrong question/options having the knowledge of the correct option might be the losers as they are not be awarded marks. 22. As regards to the wrong options in the key answers this Court was initially of the view that those who have opted the correct options as per the experts opinion be awarded marks. If that is directed it would give rise to further complications as all the original OMR Sheets have been destroyed. As such considering the present situation, this Court is of the opinion that, in respect of the questions wherein the options in the key answers are not tallying between the options given by the Board and that of the experts, all the examinees be awarded the marks for the said questions wherein the options in the key answers were not correct. 23. Having heard the parties and closely considering the materials placed, this Court must examine the issue and award six marks against the six defective questions on the test of prejudice caused to all candidates who appeared in the examination. Considering the order impugned of the Hon’ble Single Bench which granted six marks across the Board to all the six petitioners who approached the Hon’ble Single Bench, this Court is also of the view that each candidate who appeared in the said examination were equally disadvantaged and/or prejudiced by the said six defective questions and hence be awarded the six marks. 24. Accordingly, to the mind of this Court both sides of examinees stood equally circumstanced. The fault in not providing the correct question with the correct answer keys and therefore not providing all candidates with a level playing field lies with the Board. The Board cannot therefore now sub-divide and/or micro-manage the issue by leaning towards one set of examinees to the disadvantage of other set. 25. The fault in not providing the correct question with the correct answer keys and therefore not providing all candidates with a level playing field lies with the Board. The Board cannot therefore now sub-divide and/or micro-manage the issue by leaning towards one set of examinees to the disadvantage of other set. 25. This Court is also of the considered view that none shall be prejudiced and/or inter se performance of any examinee vis a vis the other shall not be affected in the event all the candidates are granted six marks against the six wrong questions. 26. The Secretary of the West Bengal Board is thus directed to award marks to all the examinees irrespective of whether they have attempted the wrong question/options in the key answers of the JGB question Booklet series or not. 27. This Order shall not however affect steps taken so far by the Board or, already in the process of being taken by the Board, in respect of TET 2014. 28. In the light of the discussion above, the Order impugned directing payment of costs also stands set aside. 29. Both the Orders dated 3rd October, 2018 and 3rd September, 2021 in so far as such Orders grant 6 marks to the candidates stand accordingly affirmed. 30. In view of the above directions, this Court holds the award of marks to be in rem and not in personam. The second issue stands accordingly answered. 29. Both the Orders dated 3rd October, 2018 and 3rd September, 2021 in so far as such Orders grant 6 marks to the candidates stand accordingly affirmed. 30. In view of the above directions, this Court holds the award of marks to be in rem and not in personam. The second issue stands accordingly answered. MAT 1594 of 2018 with IA NO: CAN/1/2019(Old No:CAN/5471/2019), CAN/3/2019(Old No:CAN/8274/2019),CAN/4/2021, CAN/5/2021 CAN/6/2022, CAN/7/2022, CAN/8/2022, CAN/9/2022, CAN/10/2022, CAN/11/2022, CAN/12/2022, CAN/13/2022, CAN/14/2022, CAN/15/2022, CAN/16/2022, CAN/17/2022, CAN/18/2022, CAN/19/2022, CAN/20/2022, CAN/21/2022, CAN/22/2022, CAN/23/2022, CAN/24/2022, CAN/25/2022, CAN/26/2022, CAN/27/2022, CAN/28/2022, CAN/29/2022, CAN/30/2022, CAN/31/2022, CAN/32/2022, CAN/33/2022, CAN/34/2022, CAN/35/2022, CAN/36/2022, CAN/37/2022, CAN/38/2022, CAN/39/2022, CAN/40/2022, CAN/41/2022, CAN/42/2022, CAN/43/2022, CAN/44/2022, CAN/45/2022, CAN/46/2022, CAN/47/2022, CAN/48/2022, CAN/49/2022, CAN/50/2022, CAN/51/2022, CAN/52/2022, CAN/53/2022, CAN/54/2022, CAN/55/2022, CAN/56/2022, CAN/57/2022, CAN/58/2022, CAN/59/2022, CAN/60/2022, CAN/61/2022, CAN/62/2022, CAN/63/2022, CAN/64/2022, CAN/65/2022, CAN/66/2022, CAN/67/2022, CAN/68/2022, CAN/69/2022, CAN/70/2022, CAN/71/2023, CAN/72/2023, CAN/73/2023, CAN/74/2023, CAN/75/2023, CAN/76/2023, CAN/77/2023 With MAT/953/2021 With MAT/999/2021 with IA NO: CAN/1/2021, CAN/2/2021 With WPA/10005/2021 With WPA/10304/2019 With WPA/10306/2019 With WPA/10308/2019 With WPA/1053/2022 With WPA/10540/2019 With WPA/10541/2019 With WPA/10543/2019 With WPA/10800/2019 With WPA/10803/2019 With WPA/10909/2018 With WPA/10954/2021 With WPA/10956/2019 With WPA/10958/2021 With WPA/1099/2021 With WPA/11001/2019 With WPA/11002/2019 With WPA/11003/2019 With WPA/11004/2019 With WPA/1125/2021 With WPA/11433/2020 With WPA/11701/2019 With WPA/11702/2019 With WPA/12021/2019 With WPA/13016/2019 with WPA/1316/2022 With WPA/1353/2020 With WPA/1396/2021 With WPA/14722/2021 With WPA/14728/2021 With WPA/14736/2021 With WPA/16242/2019 With WPA/16244/2019 With WPA/164/2022 With WPA/16436/2018 With WPA/16438/2018 With WPA/16440/2018 With WPA/16448/2018 With WPA/16449/2018 With WPA/16536/2021 With WPA/16598/2019 With WPA/17003/2019 With WPA/17009/2018 With WPA/17018/2018 With WPA/17024/2018 With WPA/17025/2018 With WPA/1704/2021 With WPA/1729/2022 With WPA/1732/2022 With WPA/17406/2019 With WPA/17408/2019 With WPA/17619/2018 With WPA/17749/2018 With WPA/17944/2019 With WPA/18329/2021 With WPA/18370/2019 With WPA/18865/2018 With WPA/18880/2021 With WPA/19052/2019 With WPA/19087/2019 with IA NO: CAN/1/2020 with WPA/1940/2021 with IA NO: CAN/1/2022 with WPA/19432/2019 with WPA/19607/2018 With WPA/19608/2018 With WPA/19672/2019 With IA NO: CAN/1/2020 With WPA/1971/2021 With WPA/19733/2018 With WPA/1991/2021 With WPA/20132/2018 With WPA/20219/2019 With WPA/202/2022 With WPA/20227/2019 With WPA/20246/2018 With WPA/20249/2018 With WPA/20251/2018 With WPA/20253/2018 With WPA/20255/2018 With WPA/20257/2018 With WPA/20258/2018 With WPA/20260/2018 With WPA/20262/2018 With WPA/20263/2018 With WPA/20264/2018 With WPA/20265/2018 With WPA/20314/2018 With WPA/20317/2018 With WPA/20332/2019 With WPA/20341/2019 With WPA/204/2021 with WPA/204/2022 With WPA/20422/2018 With WPA/20425/2018 With WPA/20484/2018 With WPA/20495/2018 With WPA/20642/2021 with WPA/2097/2022 with WPA/20987/2019 with WPA/20988/2019 with WPA/20989/2019 with WPA/20990/2019 with WPA/20991/2019 with WPA/21191/2018 with WPA/21398/2018 with WPA/21407/2018 with WPA/21411/2018 with WPA/21531/2018 with WPA/21649/2018 with WPA/21650/2018 with WPA/21717/2019 with WPA/21725/2018 with WPA/21751/2019 with WPA/21766/2018 with WPA/21859/2018 with WPA/219/2021 with WPA/22274/2018 with WPA/2245/2021 with WPA/22507/2018 with WPA/22701/2019 with WPA/22732/2018 IA NO: CAN/1/2020 with WPA/22848/2018 with WPA/229/2021 with WPA/22962/2018 with WPA/22998/2018 with WPA/23013/2018 with WPA/23016/2018 with WPA/23122/2018 with WPA/23129/2018 with WPA/23132/2018 with WPA/23141/2018 with WPA/23353/2018 with WPA/23609/2019 with WPA/24496/2018 with WPA/24499/2018 with WPA/24520/2018 with WPA/24522/2018 with WPA/24523/2018 with WPA/24556/2018 with WPA/2460/2018 with WPA/2469/2021 with IA NO: CAN/1/2022 with WPA/24917/2018 with WPA/24919/2018 with WPA/24986/2018 with WPA/25180/2018 with WPA/25374/2018 with WPA/25375/2018 with WPA/25376/2018 with WPA/25502/2018 with WPA/26065/2018 with WPA/26067/2018 with WPA/26069/2018 with WPA/26071/2018 with WPA/26076/2018 with WPA/26078/2018 with WPA/26084/2018 with WPA/26146/2018 with IA NO: CAN/1/2022 with WPA/2628/2021 with WPA/26317/2018 with WPA/26320/2018 with WPA/2719/2021 with WPA/2800/2019 with WPA/2802/2021 with WPA/2811/2019 with WPA/300/2021 with WPA/303/2021 with WPA/307/2021 with WPA/310/2021 with WPA/3121/2021 with WPA/314/2019 with WPA/348/2022 with WPA/350/2022 with WPA/351/2022 with WPA/4083/2021 with WPA/4414/2021 with IA NO: CAN/1/2022 with WPA/4451/2019 with WPA/4903/2019 with WPA/4920/2021 with WPA/4954/2020 with WPA/4955/2020 with WPA/5482/2021 with WPA/5550/2021 with WPA/5584/2022 with WPA/5663/2021 with WPA/6158/2022 with WPA/6291/2021 with WPA/668/2021 with WPA/685/2021 with WPA/689/2022 with WPA/738/2021 with WPA/7809/2019 with IA NO: CAN/39/2019(Old No:CAN/10172/2019), CAN/54/2019(Old No:CAN/10552/2019), CAN/55/2019(Old No:CAN/10564/2019), CAN/68/2019(Old No:CAN/10734/2019), CAN/73/2019(Old No:CAN/10866/2019), CAN/74/2019(Old No:CAN/11884/2019), CAN/75/2020(Old No:CAN/2535/2020), CAN/76/2020(Old No:CAN/2536/2020), CAN/77/2020(Old No:CAN/2537/2020), CAN/78/2020(Old No:CAN/2881/2020), CAN/79/2020, CAN/80/2020, CAN/81/2020, CAN/82/2021, CAN/83/2021, CAN/84/2021, CAN/85/2021, CAN/86/2021, CAN/87/2021, CAN/88/2022, CAN/89/2022, CAN/93/2022, CAN/97/2022, CAN/101/2022, CAN/105/2022, CAN/109/2022, CAN/113/2022, CAN/117/2022, CAN/121/2022, CAN/125/2022, CAN/129/2022, CAN/133/2022, CAN/137/2022, CAN/141/2022, CAN/145/2022, CAN/149/2022, CAN/153/2022, CAN/157/2022, CAN/161/2022, CAN/165/2022, CAN/169/2022, CAN/173/2022, CAN/177/2022, CAN/181/2022, CAN/185/2022, CAN/189/2022, CAN/193/2022, CAN/197/2023, CAN/201/2023, CAN/90/2022, CAN/94/2022, CAN/98/2022, CAN/102/2022, CAN/106/2022, CAN/110/2022, CAN/114/2022, CAN/118/2022, CAN/122/2022, CAN/126/2022, CAN/130/2022, CAN/134/2022, CAN/138/2022, CAN/142/2022, CAN/146/2022, CAN/150/2022, CAN/154/2022, CAN/158/2022, CAN/162/2022, CAN/166/2022, CAN/170/2022, CAN/174/2022, CAN/178/2022, CAN/182/2022, CAN/186/2022, CAN/190/2022, CAN/194/2022, CAN/198/2023, CAN/202/2023 CAN/91/2022, CAN/95/2022, CAN/99/2022, CAN/103/2022, CAN/107/2022, CAN/111/2022, CAN/115/2022, CAN/119/2022, CAN/123/2022, CAN/127/2022, CAN/131/2022, CAN/135/2022, CAN/139/2022, CAN/143/2022, CAN/147/2022, CAN/151/2022, CAN/155/2022, CAN/159/2022, CAN/163/2022, CAN/167/2022, CAN/171/2022, CAN/175/2022, CAN/179/2022, CAN/183/2022, CAN/187/2022, CAN/191/2022, CAN/195/2022, CAN/199/2023, CAN/92/2022, CAN/96/2022, CAN/100/2022, CAN/104/2022, CAN/108/2022, CAN/112/2022, CAN/116/2022, CAN/120/2022, CAN/124/2022, CAN/128/2022, CAN/132/2022, CAN/136/2022, CAN/140/2022, CAN/144/2022, CAN/148/2022, CAN/152/2022, CAN/156/2022, CAN/160/2022, CAN/164/2022, CAN/168/2022, CAN/172/2022, CAN/176/2022, CAN/180/2022, CAN/184/2022, CAN/188/2022, CAN/192/2022, CAN/196/2023, CAN/200/2023, IA NO: CAN/39/2019(Old No:CAN/10172/2019), CAN/54/2019(Old No:CAN/10552/2019), CAN/55/2019(Old No:CAN/10564/2019), CAN/68/2019(Old No:CAN/10734/2019), CAN/73/2019(Old No:CAN/10866/2019), CAN/74/2019(Old No:CAN/11884/2019), CAN/75/2020(Old No:CAN/2535/2020), CAN/76/2020(Old No:CAN/2536/2020), CAN/77/2020(Old No:CAN/2537/2020), CAN/78/2020(Old No:CAN/2881/2020), CAN/79/2020, CAN/80/2020, CAN/81/2020, CAN/82/2021, CAN/86/2021, CAN/90/2022, CAN/94/2022, CAN/83/2021, CAN/87/2021, CAN/91/2022, CAN/95/2022, CAN/84/2021, CAN/88/2022, CAN/92/2022, CAN/96/2022, CAN/85/2021, CAN/89/2022, CAN/93/2022, CAN/97/2022, CAN/98/2022, CAN/102/2022, CAN/106/2022, CAN/110/2022, CAN/114/2022, CAN/118/2022, CAN/122/2022, CAN/126/2022, CAN/130/2022, CAN/134/2022, CAN/138/2022, CAN/142/2022, CAN/146/2022, CAN/150/2022, CAN/154/2022, CAN/158/2022, CAN/162/2022, CAN/166/2022, CAN/170/2022, CAN/174/2022, CAN/178/2022, CAN/182/2022, CAN/186/2022, CAN/190/2022, CAN/194/2022, CAN/198/2023, CAN/99/2022, CAN/103/2022, CAN/107/2022, CAN/111/2022, CAN/115/2022, CAN/119/2022, CAN/123/2022, CAN/127/2022, CAN/131/2022, CAN/135/2022, CAN/139/2022, CAN/143/2022, CAN/147/2022, CAN/151/2022, CAN/155/2022, CAN/159/2022, CAN/163/2022, CAN/167/2022, CAN/171/2022, CAN/175/2022, CAN/179/2022, CAN/183/2022, CAN/187/2022, CAN/191/2022, CAN/195/2022, CAN/199/2023, CAN/100/2022, CAN/104/2022, CAN/108/2022, CAN/112/2022, CAN/116/2022, CAN/120/2022, CAN/124/2022, CAN/128/2022, CAN/132/2022, CAN/136/2022, CAN/140/2022, CAN/144/2022, CAN/148/2022, CAN/152/2022, CAN/156/2022, CAN/160/2022, CAN/164/2022, CAN/168/2022, CAN/172/2022, CAN/176/2022, CAN/180/2022, CAN/184/2022, CAN/188/2022, CAN/192/2022, CAN/196/2023, CAN/200/2023, CAN/101/2022, CAN/105/2022, CAN/109/2022, CAN/113/2022, CAN/117/2022, CAN/121/2022, CAN/125/2022, CAN/129/2022, CAN/133/2022, CAN/137/2022, CAN/141/2022, CAN/145/2022, CAN/149/2022, CAN/153/2022, CAN/157/2022, CAN/161/2022, CAN/165/2022, CAN/169/2022, CAN/173/2022, CAN/177/2022, CAN/181/2022, CAN/185/2022, CAN/189/2022, CAN/193/2022, CAN/197/2023, CAN/201/2023, CAN/202/2023 with WPA/7988/2021 with WPA/8028/2022 with WPA/816/2021 with WPA/824/2021 with WPA/8290/2019 with WPA/8613/2019 with WPA/8614/2019 with WPA/8889/2021 with WPA/9188/2021 with WPA/9947/2019 stand accordingly allowed. 31. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of the server copy of the judgment and order placed on the official website of the Court. 32. Urgent Xerox certified photo copies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities. 33. I Agree.