The main legal point established in the judgment is that the creation of the post of steno-typist was not contrary to the Calcutta University First Statutes, 1979.

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. The State of West Bengal and the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal call in question the judgment and order dated 11th July, 2014 passed by a learned Judge of this Court on W.P. 1014 (W) of 2008, being a writ petition presented by the respondent No. 1 (hereafter the writ petitioner). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge directed that the writ petitioner being "equally placed like stenographer and performing same duty and responsibility like the stenographer she is entitled to get equal pay and equal service benefits as that of stenographer" and accordingly, directed the appellants "to give same financial benefits in favour of the writ petitioner as given to the stenographers on and from the date of disposal of this writ petition". It was also observed that "the writ petitioner will be entitled to get notional benefit which will be counted and fixed as per rules at the time of her retirement, on the basis of pay scale and other benefits like as stenographer".

2. A short recital of the facts leading to presentation of the writ petition may not be inapposite.

3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Higher Education Department, C.S. Branch vide memo dated 2nd December, 1998 conveyed to the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal (hereafter the appellant No. 2) approval of the Governor to the creation of three additional non-teaching posts in Prabhu Jagatbandhu College, Howrah (hereafter the college) and appointment thereto in the usual scale of pay and allowances with effect from the dates of filling up of such posts during the current academic session but not earlier than the date of issue thereof. Out of the three posts, the post of steno-typist was a post that was created and approval thereof conveyed. The Governing Body of the college thereafter initiated a process of recruitment on the post of steno-typist. In such process, the writ petitioner was successful in figuring at the first position of the panel. By a letter dated 17th May, 1999 issued by the Principal of the college, the writ petitioner was offered appointment as steno-typist on a pay of Rs. 3,350/- in the scale of Rs. 3,350-90-3,800-100-4,700-122-6,325/-. The writ petitioner was required to join within 1st June, 1999 failing which the offer would stand cancelled. The writ petitioner accepted the offer and joined the college as steno-typist with effect from 1st June, 1999. During the next almost eight years she served the college, the writ petitioner raised no objection to designation of her post as steno-typist. On 7th February, 2007, for the first time, the writ petitioner complained to the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Higher Education Department, C.S. Branch, with copies to the appellant No. 2 and the Inspector of Colleges, University of Calcutta (hereafter the University), to the effect that her service should be utilized for the post of stenographer and that the post of stenographer is more essential for administrative work of the college. The essence of the said letter seems to be that the writ petitioner intended re-designation of her post as stenographer instead and in place of steno-typist. The letter did not evoke any response resulting in a notice demanding justice dated 22nd March, 2007 being issued by her learned advocate. No positive result yielded, prompting the writ petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the first time by presenting W.P. 7625 (W) of 2007. She sought for a direction for change of her designation in terms of the Calcutta University First Statutes, 1979 (hereafter the First Statutes) in connection with her service in the college. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court granting liberty to the writ petitioner to submit a representation before the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Higher Education Department within a week. The Secretary was directed to pass a reasoned order while disp