Judgment Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This mandamus appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 11th September, 2013. By the said order, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant was dismissed by holding, inter alia, that since the writ petitioner was under-qualified and could not improve her qualification before the cut off date, i.e. 23rd April, 2010, her engagement as Sahayika in Sishu Siksha Kendra cannot be allowed to be continued in view of the Government Order issued under memorandum dated 23rd April, 2010. The legality and/or propriety of the said order of the Learned Trial Judge is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner/appellant. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal in the facts of the instant case. Admittedly, the writ petitioner/appellant appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination in 1975. She got compartmental in English and Bengali. Subsequently, she appeared in the Supplementary Higher Secondary Examination, but again she got compartmental in English. Thus, she could not pass the Higher Secondary Examination. Later, she passed Madhyamik Examination from the West Bengal Council of Rabindra Open Schooling in 2011. Sishu Siksha Karmasuchi was introduced by the West Bengal Government in the year 1999. As per the Government Order issued on 30th March, 1999 a candidate who has passed Madhyamik Examination under West Bengal Board of Secondary Education or having equivalent qualification could be considered as eligible for being appointed as Siksha Sahayika/Sahayak. The writ petitioner/appellant herein passed Class-X Examination under the old Higher Secondary Course. She was promoted to Class-XI under the old Higher Secondary Course. She appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination under the old Higher Secondary Course in 1975 but could not come out successfully. Thus, her educational qualification was class X-passed under the old Higher Secondary Course. In view of the Government Order issued under Memorandum No. 133 (52)-F/F2M-100/62 dated 12th January, 1963, her class X-passed qualification can be recognised as equivalent to school final/matriculation passed certificate for the purpose of appointment to service and post under the State Government. In fact, the concerned authority after being satisfied about her educational qualification, engaged her as Sahayika in Kazi Nazrul Sishu Siksha Kendra in the year 1999. In fact, the concerned authority after being satisfied about her educational qualification, engaged her as Sahayika in Kazi Nazrul Sishu Siksha Kendra in the year 1999. The first agreement which was entered into between the Managing Committee of the Sishu Siksha Kendra and the writ petitioner/appellant remained valid till 30th April, 2000. Thereafter each year the said agreement was renewed and the last of such agreement which was entered into between the parties on 29th May, 2009 remained valid till 30th April, 2010. In view of the said agreement dated 29th May, 2009, she remained as Sahayika and continuously discharged her duties as such till 30th April, 2010. During the continuance of her engagement, a Government Order was issued under Memorandum dated 23rd April, 2010 whereby a right of permanency in service till the attainment of the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years of age was given to the Sishu Siksha Sahayaks and Sahayikas. In view of the said Government Order, the writ petitioner/appellant acquired the right to remain in service till the attainment of age of 60 years. As such, we are of the view that the Nodal Officer was not justified by not allowing the writ petitioner/appellant to continue her service as Sahayika in the said Sishu Siksha Kendra by wrongly applying the Government Order issued under Memorandum dated 23rd April, 2010 on the ground that she was unable to satisfy the requisite educational qualification criteria as per the said Government Order. As per the said Government Order, the requisite educational qualification of the Sishu Siksha Sahayak/Sahayika was prescribed as Higher Secondary passed. Admittedly the writ petitioner/appellant was unable to satisfy the said eligibility criteria laid down in the Government Memorandum issued on 23rd April, 2010. In this context, a question has cropped up as to how far the said Government Memorandum of 2010 is applicable to writ petitioner/appellant. Having regard to the fact that the writ petitioner/appellant had the requisite qualification at the time of her initial engagement and her such engagement having been renewed from time to time till 30th April, 2010, further renewal of her engagement was not needed in view of the Government Memorandum issued on 23rd April, 2010 granting right of permanency in her service till the attainment of the age of 60 years. Since this is not a case of new engagement in 2010, the educational qualification criteria laid in 2010 Government Memorandum cannot be applied to her. Thus, we cannot approve the order which was passed by the Nodal Officer which was impugned in the writ petition and for similar reason we cannot agree with the conclusion of the Learned Single Judge drawn in the impugned order. The impugned order thus stands set aside. The order passed by the Nodal Officer on 11th June, 2013 appearing at page 105 of the stay application is set aside. We direct the concerned authority including the Nodal Officer to allow the writ petitioner/appellant to resume her service so that she can continue her engagement till the attainment of the age of her superannuation. The concerned authority is thus directed to allow the writ petitioner/appellant to resume her duties within a week from the date of communication of this order. The appeal is thus allowed. Re: CAN 11810 of 2013 (Stay) In view of disposal of the appeal in the manner as aforesaid, no further order need be passed on the stay application. The stay application being CAN 11810 of 2013 is thus deemed to be disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant as early as possible.