(1.) Spate of reverses did not make her reconcile with her fate but on the contrary gave her the grit to venture at the end of the tunnel. Alleging illegal action of the respondents in engaging the respondent No. 6 in supersession of her claim for additional Para Teacher in the school of the respondent No. 5, initially, she had moved writ application being W.P. No. 12657 (W) of 2009. It was disposed of by the Hon'ble Trial Court by directing the respondent No. 3 (The District Project Officer) to consider the complaint of the appellant and pass reasoned order on the basis of the same. Pursuant thereto, the respondent No. 3 conducted the said exercise on 15/09/2009 and at the end concluded in respect of his findings (See: Page 45 of the Stay Petition). We need not reproduce the same as it already finds place at paragraph 3 of page 2 of the judgment & order under appeal.
(2.) Since there was no cheers, she made a second trip invoking the high prerogative writ of this Court in W.P. 363(W) of 2010. The said writ application was dismissed. The Hon'ble Trial Court found that in terms of the order passed on the previous occasion in W.P. 12657(W) of 2009, the respondent No. 3 had conducted an exercise, results of which have been quoted by His Lordship at paragraph 3 of Page 2 of the judgment & order under appeal, which could not be brought as a subject matter for consideration of the writ jurisdiction unless the same ".is palpably wrong or is arbitrary or perverse or smacks off mala fide motive or has been rendered without adhering to the specific directions given by the Court. "His Lordship has referred to the decision of this Court in Amarendranath Mondal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2011 AIR(Cal) 56
(3.) Coincidentally, a Division Bench of this Court in Sourindra Nath Hazra vs. Subhendu Kundu & Ors. (FMA, 1044 of 2010+ CAN 403 of 2010 with W.P. 619(W) of 2008) on 24/08/2011 had approved the ratio of the decision in Amarendra nath Mondal vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.