TALUKDAR, J.

1. IT is now also well settled that a Court of Appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below." Sinha, J. speaking for the Bench in Majunath Anandappa urf Shivappa Hanasi v. Tamanasa and Ors., (2003)10 SCC 390 in Paragraph 36 quoted to the above extent after referring to its earlier decision in U. P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. Sunder Bros, reported in AIR 1967 SC 249, wherein Paragraph 8 it had been held :

"........In dealing with the matter raised before it at the appellate stage the appellate Court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of the discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it may have come to a contrary conclusion........."

2. In the twilight zone of the same, we will be required to appreciate the verdict of the Hon'ble trial Court returned in W.P. No. 2093(W) of 2009 on 08/04/2010 and see as to whether the same can pass the touchstone of the aforesaid guidelines. His Lordship in the impugned Order referred to above, made a purposive construction of Rule 14 of the Primary Teachers Recruitment Rule, 2001 on the anvil of Articl