PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J.

1. If a single post cannot be reserved, then can a writ petitioner who complains of such a reservation in case of a single post, still be asked to go home from the writ court with empty hands? In other words, when a writ petitioner challenges a reservation on a question of law, even if he succeeds, can the relief which flows from such success, be denied? The respondents say it has to be denied. Very simply put, that is the case before me.

2. The respondent no. 2, the District Project Officer of the Sarva Siksha Mission for the District of South 24 Parganas, issued a guideline on November 18, 2008 (Annexure P/2) inter alia requiring that fifty percent of all posts of para-teachers be reserved for female candidates. Under the project/scheme of Sarva Siksha Mission, (referred to as “the said project/scheme” hereinafter) it is an admitted position that the engagement was to be contractual, for a period of one year, but subject to renewal. Accordingly, the managing committee of the Kamar Pota Ramkrishna Vidya Mandir, a primary school covered by the said scheme, issued a notification dated June 25, 2009 (Annexure P/1) advertising for applications from eligible female candidates for engagement as a parateacher in history. This was therefore, a single post which it reserved for a female candidate. The writ petitioner was eligible in all respects for such contractual engagement if found suitable, except that he was of the wrong gender. He applied for being considered for engagement, but the school authorities rejected his application on the sole ground that the post was reserved for female candidates and the writ petitioner was not female. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved, represented his grievances to the respondent no. 2 and also the respondent no. 3, Director of Sarva Siksha Mission, West Bengal, by his letters dated July 23, 2009, July 28, 2009 and August 5, 2009.It is the case of the writ petitioner that nothing was done by the respondents concerned even after the concerned District Magistrate by a letter dated August 11, 2009 asked the respondent no. 2 to look into the allegations. The writ petitioner thereafter applied before this court when a coordinate bench, by an order dated May 10, 2013 passed in WP No.16205 (W) of 2009 [Madhab Chandra Neogi-v-State of West Bengal and Others] directed the present respondent no. 3 (respondent no. 2 therein) to take a reasoned decision in terms of the said letter dated August 11, 2009, within a time bound manner. Admittedly the present respondent no. 2, by a reasoned order June 28, 2013 (Annexure P/8) has decided the matter and rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner to issue fresh notification advertising the post as a general and unreserved post on the ground that supervening notifications which bind him has completely prohibited fresh engagement of para-teachers and only allowed such processes which had started before March 27, 2010 to continue till May 31, 2010. Hence the writ petitioner has approached this court. The writ petition was heard on affidavits.

3. Before proceeding further with the matter, it will be instructive to see what the writ petitioner had wanted in the earlier round of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Only two of the prayers - being the principal reliefs - have been reproduced, at paragraph 12 of the present writ petition. They are as follows: -

“a. Cancellation/withdrawal by all concerned respondents authorities, of the notification dated 25th June, 200, whereby a single/sold (sic for ‘sole’) post of para teacher for History was reserved for a female candidate.

b. Issuance of a fresh Notification for filing up the single post of para teacher of History from General Category candidates.”

4. When this was disposed of by the coordinate bench on May 10, 2013 directing only that the representations of the writ petitioner be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order in terms of the request dated A