The court upheld the legality of the petitioner's engagement based on prior approvals despite subsequent policy changes, reaffirming the principle of non-retrospective application of administrative directives.

Mr. Sarwar Jahan Ms. Mousumi Mitra Mr. Kaustav Roy …… For the appellant Mr. Sunit Kr. Roy Ms. Susmita Mandal ….. For the respondent/writ petitioner no. 1 The present appeal has been preferred by the Mission Director, Paschim Banga Rajya Sishu Siksha Mission (hereinafter referred to as the said Mission) challenging a judgment dated 20^th January, 2025 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition being WPA 24615 of 2024 which was preferred by the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1, namely, Muktara Bibi (Khatun) (in short, Muktara), inter alia, praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents primarily for the following relief:-

‘Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their men, agents and servants herein to pay regular as well as arrear honorarium view of engagement of the petitioner being Sahayika of Jiyagachi Sishu Siksha Kendra, Jiyagachi, Dhangra, Chanchal II, District – Malda w.e.f. 26.6.2010, forthwith.’

In connection with the appeal, an application for condonation of delay being IA No. CAN 2 of 2025 has been filed. Upon perusal of the records, we are satisfied with the explanation given towards the delay in preferring the appeal and accordingly, such delay is condoned. The application being IA No. CAN 2 of 2025 is disposed of. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for Muktara submits that in connection with the appeal, Muktara has preferred an application being IA No. CAN 1 of 2025 primarily seeking expeditious disposal of the appeal. The said application is disposed of and the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

Drawing our attention to a memo dated 23rd April, 2010 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Panchayats and Rural Development and particularly, clause 5 of the said memo, Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that alleged engagement of Muktara was not prior to issuance of the said memo.

He argues that the concerned Sthayee Samity approved the earlier selection process by a resolution dated 4^th May, 2010, i.e., subsequent to the issuance of the said memo dated 23^rd April, 2010. The purported engagement of Muktara pertaining to an earlier selection process was thus, void ab initio and Muktara did not acquire any right to the post. Such argument, as urged, was glossed over by the learned Judge and no finding was returned on the same. Such infirmity warrants interference of the Court.

Mr. Jahan further submits that by the memo dated

23rd April, 2010, the selection committee was reconstituted and as such, the decision of the earlier selection committee could not have been approved subsequent to the change of policy as reflected in the memo dated 23rd April, 2010.

Mr. Roy denies and disputes the contention of Mr.

Jahan and submits that Muktara applied for appointment as the 4^th Sahayika at Jiyagachi Sishu Siksha Kendra (hereinafter referred to as the said SSK) responding to an advertisement published by the competent authority. She emerged to be successful in the selection process and her engagement was also approved by the Sthayee Samity on 4^th May, 2010.

Drawing our attention to a memo dated 12^th April, 2010 issued by the respondent no. 6 herein Mr. Roy submits that at the very inception, the competent authority being the respondent no. 6, granted permission to the said SSK to take necessary steps for engagement of the 3^rd and the 4^th Sahayika Sahayika on the basis of the government circulars dated 8^th November, 2004 and 27^th October, 2006.

He argues that after conclusion of the selection process and approval by the competent authority, the rules could not have been changed subsequently through the issuance of the memo dated 23^rd April, 2010.

He further submits that, in fact, after such approval by the Sthayee Samity, the said SSK entered into an agreement with Muktara and she started discharging her services on the basis of the said agreement. Such engagement of Muktara was, however, challenged by the earlier 4^th Sa