JUDGMENT 1. More than half a century ago Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Four Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in A.M. Alison vs. B.L. Sen, AIR 1957 SC 227 held ".... we would refuse to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the case requires it....". Followed by the same Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the Supreme Court in Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd. Etc. vs. Gujrat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & Ors. reported in AIR 1980 SC 1896 concluded "... And an appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong. The difference is real though fine". And Sinha, J. in paragraph 36 of Manjunath A.S.H. vs. Tammanasa.... 2003 (10) SCC 390 settling the issue concluded, ".... it is now also well settled that a Court of Appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below". 2. In the prism of such a situation an order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. 13100 (W) of 2011 dated 29.9.2011 has been carried at the instance of the respondent No. 6 in the Writ Petition (appellant herein), who purportedly is a member of the Managing Committee and in the eye of law nothing but a busy body. He feels that the direction passed by the learned Writ Court setting aside the order of appointment of D.D.O. by the D.I.O.S. was not in accordance with law and practically thereby the final relief at the instance of the respondent No. 1 has been given. 3. Shri Bari in support of the appeal has raised a number of points. According to Shri Bari, the learned Single Judge did not take into account the fact that the approval of the Board was necessary before such a decision setting aside the appointment of D.D.O. was made. Shri Bari submitted that the learned Single Judge did not properly interpret Rule 27(3) of the Management Rules and has prayed for stay of the said order. 4. Shri Bhattacharya for the respondent No. 8, Head Master, has placed before us a decision of this Court in Secretary, Managing Committee of Guma Rabindra Vidyapith High School & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2009 (3) CHN 804 . 4. Shri Bhattacharya for the respondent No. 8, Head Master, has placed before us a decision of this Court in Secretary, Managing Committee of Guma Rabindra Vidyapith High School & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2009 (3) CHN 804 . According to Shri Bhattacharya, as the order passed by the D.I.O.S. appointing the D.D.O. was bereft of any application of mind, rightly the same was set aside by the learned Single Judge and no interference in appeal was called for. Shri Bhattacharya further submitted that the appellant did not have any locus standi as it was the State who should have been aggrieved with the order and in the absence of any steps taken by the State, locus standi of Shri Bari was very much under challenge. 5. Shri Dhar for the respondent No. 1 by way of endorsing the submissions of Shri Bhattacharya, has also placed the decision of this Court in Secretary, Managing Committee of Guma Rabindra Vidyapith High School (supra). According to Shri Dhar, the action of D.I.O.S. must be preceded by reason as within the meaning of sub-rule (3) of Rule 27 of the Management Rules the satisfaction of the State is sine qua non for the formation of opinion and that it proceed to usurp the jurisdiction of validly constituted managing committee. 6. Since we have heard this matter for more than 90 minutes even at the stage of admission, we feel that practically nothing would remain for final stage of the appeal and we would propose to dispose of the appeal itself by way of treating it as on day's list in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd. Etc.(supra), we are at the first instance of the opinion that there is hardly any scope to interfere with the order under appeal as firstly, it is at the nascent stage of exchange of affidavits and secondly, the learned Single Judge has found foul with the exercise done by the D.I.O.S. in appointing D.D.O. in breach of sub-rule (3) of Rule 27 of the Management Rules. According to His Lordships subjective satisfaction in support of which necessary discussion followed by the logic of law has been incorporated in the order under appeal. 7. According to His Lordships subjective satisfaction in support of which necessary discussion followed by the logic of law has been incorporated in the order under appeal. 7. We feel, in our scope of extended judicial review, it has to be borne out from the order under appeal that it is not simply "not right but has to be clearly wrong" as held by Krishna Iyer, J. in Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd. Etc. (supra). A plain reading of the order under appeal in the backdrop of the submissions made at the Bar it would be very difficult for us to conclude in the direction that at all order under appeal is not right or it is clearly wrong. On the contrary, we find that the learned Single Judge has been quite magnanimous, if we may not say charitable enough to go in for affidavits, whereas the issue was required to be disposed of even at the motion stage having bearing no merit. 8. From a fulcrum effect of the entire conspectus of the issue before us and upon taking into account the decisions cited by Shri Bhattacharya which has been controverted by Shri Bari in the light of the decision of Vijoy Bahadur Singh and Other vs. Director, Secondary Education and Others reported in AIR 1981 Cal 105 , we come to the following conclusion. 9. Dipankar Datta, J. in the decision of Secretary, Managing Committee of Guma Rabindra Vidyapith High School and Others (supra) has distinguished the decision of Vijoy Bahadur Singh (supra). Datta, J. had made a fine distinction with regard to the question of satisfaction which has been sought to be distinguished by Shri Bari in the light of the decision of Vijoy Bahadur Singh (supra). 10. As we have already held that the learned Trial Court had concluded in the direction on a prima facie basis that the appointment of the D.D.O. was invalid as it was without any formation of opinion, we do not see any reason as to why the same is required to be interfered with in the absence of any gross abnormality or material irregularity which made the order vulnerable. Accordingly, having found no merit in the appeal we dismiss the same also with the application for stay being A.S.T.A. No. 481 of 2011. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.