JUDGMENT Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. The writ petitioner questioned the impugned Government notification No. 1095-Edn.(CS) dated 2nd December, 1998 creating some non-teaching posts including the post of steno-typist in which petitioner was appointed. Fact reveals that the petitioner was appointed in the post of stenotypist in Prabhu Jagabandhu College, Howrah. The College was affiliated to the University of Calcutta. Although Calcutta University First Statute, 1979 did not provide for the post of steno-typist amongst posts of non-teaching staff including the post of stenographer, the concerned respondents created post of steno-typist contrary to the provisions under the Calcutta University First Statute 1979. The admissible pay scale for the post of stenographer being much higher than what was being paid to the petitioner in her post as steno-typist although the relevant qualification for the said post and the nature of work performed in that post being same and identical, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent authorities for redesignation of her post as stenographer and grant of same scale of pay as that of stenographer but no step was taken to redress the grievances of the petitioner. On an invitation for selection of steno-typist in Prabhu Jagabandhu College, Howrah the petitioner’s name along with twenty other candidates was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the College authority. Petitioner got a call letter to appear in interview on 7th April, 1999 at the College premises. She also appeared in written examination held on 5th May, 1999 and 14th May, 1999. She also appeared in the test in shorthand dictation and transcription by way of typewriting. She stood first out of seventeen candidates and being the first candidate in the panel prepared for selection she was appointed as steno-typist in the said College. The College was upgraded for academic infrastructure and financial development and gradually increasing number of students and about 25000 library books were kept. Petitioner since after her appointment in 1999, although aggrieved against her pay scale in the post of steno-typist in comparison with the post of stenographer, made various representations to the appropriate authority to give her the benefit of the scale of pay etc. similar to that of stenographer. The writ petitioner although having same qualification like stenographer is getting lesser pay since the nomenclature of the post is steno-typist. similar to that of stenographer. The writ petitioner although having same qualification like stenographer is getting lesser pay since the nomenclature of the post is steno-typist. According to the petitioner, Calcutta University First Statute did not provide for the post of steno-typist amongst various posts of non-teaching staff. According to the petitioner, the required qualification for the post and the nature or work for the said post being same and identical the respondent authorities should allow redesignation of her post as stenographer and grant the same scale of pay as that of stenographer. Representations made by the writ petitioner were not considered by the concerned authorities. Writ petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition before this Court and the learned Single Judge by order dated 28th April, 2007 directed the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of West Bengal to consider the prayer of the petitioner. The concerned Secretary upon hearing the petitioner passed an impugned order dated 28th August, 2007 refusing the prayer of the writ petitioner to treat her as stenographer and to admit her the same scale of pay as that of stenographer. The writ petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the impugned order dated 28th August, 2007. Learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 3rd March, 2008 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had not challenged the approval granted by the Department of Higher Education, Government of West Bengal to the post of stenographer which she is presently occupying. Against the order of dismissal the petitioner preferred an appeal and the Hon’ble Appeal Court after careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties came to a conclusion that the memo dated 2nd December, 1998 has been assailed before the learned Single Judge in this writ petition and the learned Single Judge did not consider the merit of the claim of the petitioner while dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Appeal Court observed that the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition on the sole ground that the memo has not been challenged and accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. The matter was taken up for fresh consideration on remand in view of the Hon’ble Appeal Court’s decision dated 27th February, 2005. Mr. The matter was taken up for fresh consideration on remand in view of the Hon’ble Appeal Court’s decision dated 27th February, 2005. Mr. Moitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the prayer for redesignation of her post as steno-typist and allowing her the same pay scale as admissible to a stenographer was turned down on the sole ground that the post of stenographer has not been created in any of the sponsored colleges in West Bengal so far and unless this post of stenographer exists the representation of the petitioner cannot be considered. It was also mentioned that the position was explained to the petitioner and the petitioner was requested to find out if there was any such post in any sponsored college in West Bengal and to report the same to the concerned officer. According to the Additional Chief Secretary who has disposed of the matter of the petitioner, post of stenographer does not exist at sponsored colleges in West Bengal and as such there is no room to consider the instant representation of the petitioner for elevation to the post of stenographer. Mr. Moitra submits that the service of the petitioner is governed by University Regulation, which is applicable to all sponsored non-Government colleges. Service of the petitioner is never controlled by the Government memos or regulations contrary to University Regulations. Mr. Moitra submits that the Government Memo No. 1095-Edn(CS) dated 2nd December, 1998 is under challenge, whereby the Government had sanctioned the post of steno-typist in the college to which the petitioner was appointed. According to him, the Government Memo dated 2nd December, 1998 is contrary to the University regulation. Mr. Moitra points out that under University Regulation the post of stenographer is provided. According to him, Calcutta University First Statute of 1979 did not provide for the post of steno-typist amongst various posts of non-teaching staff. Mr. Moitra submits that since under the Calcutta University First Statute post of stenographer is provided, under no circumstances this memo could be issued by the State Government. According to him, the scale of pay admissible to the post of stenographer, which is much higher than the pay of steno-typist, is not paid to the petitioner on the alleged ground which is not at all justifiable. Petitioner ought to be re-designated or there should be correction of the nomenclature ‘steno-typist’. Mr. According to him, the scale of pay admissible to the post of stenographer, which is much higher than the pay of steno-typist, is not paid to the petitioner on the alleged ground which is not at all justifiable. Petitioner ought to be re-designated or there should be correction of the nomenclature ‘steno-typist’. Mr. Moitra submits that the required qualification and the duties and responsibility involved in the post of steno-typist and stenographer are same and identical. In the instant case, the petitioner is working as an assistant to the Principal of the concerned College like a stenographer. The petitioner is to transcribe the dictation by typewriting. Mr. Moitra submits the concerned State authorities made a classification within the same class which is not permissible, which is discriminatory and arbitrary. According to Mr. Moitra, the job of stenographer is not more onerous nor even specialised in any way than what is required from the steno-typist. At least the State respondent has never said there is any such difference or any onerous job is to be performed by the stenographer in comparison to the job of the steno-typist. Mr. Moitra submits that the Government’s plea is also based on the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976. According to Mr. Moitra, that Act is of no relevance in the instant case. Mr. Moitra submits that another plea taken by the State authorities to the effect that the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 is a bar. According to Mr. Moitra, that plea is not sustainable. Mr. Moitra submits a plain reading of Section 3 would make it clear that no college affiliated to University excepting a college which is established, maintained or administered by State Government or established by a religious or linguistic minorities or not in receipt of financial assistance of the State Government is attracted. In the instant case the appointment of the petitioner is in respect of an affiliated sponsored college. According to him, the relevant provision has no manner of application. Mr. Moitra further submits that relevant consideration is the duty and function discharged by the candidate for holding two posts are to be considered where duty and function are equivalent and same. According to him, duties and responsibilities are same for those two posts. Mr. According to him, the relevant provision has no manner of application. Mr. Moitra further submits that relevant consideration is the duty and function discharged by the candidate for holding two posts are to be considered where duty and function are equivalent and same. According to him, duties and responsibilities are same for those two posts. Mr. Moitra submits that in paragraph 16 of the writ petition the writ petitioner gave clear narration of her duties, she is discharging which are same and identical work as stenographer. In case the Principal or Teacher-in-Charge give dictation to the petitioner for any sort of communication or for any administrative work the petitioner take it by shorthand and also transcribe in the same way as done by stenographer. Mr. Moitra submits the writ petitioner is working as assistant to the Principal from the date of her appointment. The duty of the petitioner is to maintain all important files and secret files viz., finance and governing body’s meetings and work of delicate nature and various secretarial jobs and keep it completely confidential. According to the instruction of the Principal the petitioner is also taking shorthand dictation of the proceeding/minutes in the governing body meeting to the college on different issuers on agenda, which may be involved as additional work and there is neither any appointment of the petitioner by the governing body or the college nor any allowance is paid relating to the said job. Petitioner is efficiently handling different kinds of administrative computerised jobs as and when required for the interest of the college. The petitioner is dealing with (1) Finance Confidential file, (2) Admission file, (3) B.Ed. course, (4) Career Advancement, (5) College Service Commission (6) Election, (7) Examination, (8) Faculty Improvement programme, (9) Formation of governing body, (10) Governing body notice, (11) Governing body minutes, (12) Grant-in-aid (13) Input Form I & II, (14) Internal Practical Examiners, (15) Joint Entrance and various other files. Mr. Moitra submits in view of petitioner’s involvement in all those important works and handling of all such important files as a steno-typist entitle her to be eligible to hold such post of stenographer and she should be awarded same pay scale of stenographer as envisaged under the Statute. Mr. Moitra refers the relevant clauses under Calcutta University First Statute, 1979. Moitra submits in view of petitioner’s involvement in all those important works and handling of all such important files as a steno-typist entitle her to be eligible to hold such post of stenographer and she should be awarded same pay scale of stenographer as envisaged under the Statute. Mr. Moitra refers the relevant clauses under Calcutta University First Statute, 1979. He submits that under Chapter XIII of the Statute relating to the terms of employment and condition of service of non-teaching employees of colleges affiliated to University other than Government colleges were prescribed. Mr. Moitra submits as per clause 1 these Statutes are called the Statutes relating to the terms of employment and conditions of service of non-teaching employees of colleges affiliated to the University other than Government Colleges. According to Clause 2 these Statutes shall apply to the non-teaching employees of colleges affiliated to the University other than Government colleges. Clause 3 also stipulates that for the purposes of these Statutes, the employees concerned are classified. Under sub-clause (a)(ii) posts are specifically mentioned wherein the post of stenographer is very much available. Sub-clause (a)(iii) indicates class of employees viz. Assistant, Clerk, Library Assistant, Laboratory Assistant, Store Clerk, Store-keeper, Care-taker, Stenographer, Record Keeper, Collection Clerk and such other posts as may be approved by the State Government. Therefore, the post of stenographer is prescribed. It was further clarified that other posts may be included as may be approved by the State Government. Mr. Moitra then submits that there is no difference between the two posts viz. stenographer and steno-typist. Accordingly, the petitioner should be given the benefit like the stenographer and if necessary it may be approved by the State Government as per Calcutta University First Statute, 1979. According to him, the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 has no manner of application since these colleges are not coming under any of the three groups as mentioned under Section 3(1)(a),(b) and (c). Mr. Moitra submits that petitioner’s case is covered under the First Statute of the University which is governing service condition of non-teaching staff of all the colleges. Mr. Moitra submits that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. He also submits that equivalence to be made by proper application of mind. Mr. Mr. Moitra submits that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. He also submits that equivalence to be made by proper application of mind. Mr. Moitra also submits that the notification issued by the Government cannot override the First Statute of 1979, which is applicable to the petitioner. According to Mr. Moitra, in the nomenclature of stenographer and steno-typist no difference is there. He submits that the order impugned is only based upon non-availability of post of stenographer in Government sponsored colleges. Mr. Moitra cited following decisions in support of his submission: E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, AIR 1974 SC 555 ; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another, AIR 1986 SC 1571 ; Nar Singh Pal vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1401 ; State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa and others, AIR 1974 SC 1 ; Union of India and others vs. Arun Kumar Roy, AIR 1986 SC 737 ; the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in case of (N.P. Verma and others and Union of India and others) on Equation of Posts. Mr. De, learned Counsel appearing for the State authorities submits that the State is the appropriate authority to create posts. According to Mr. De, no post of stenographer is created under Section 3 of West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976. Petitioner’s post of steno-typist was approved long back in 1995 and thereafter post was advertised and selection was held. Petitioner was appointed and she continued for eight years in the said post and also enjoyed the benefits for the same. Petitioner came up before this Court after eight years of rendering service. Mr. De submits there is much delay in filing this writ petition and the delay is not at all explained. The writ petitioner is estopped from challenging the sanction of post as well as appointment in that post after her due selection and appointment. According to Mr. De, Section 3 of West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 provides posts to be created and approved by State and no college is authorised to give appointment without prior sanction. This Act has come into operation from 1st April, 1976. Mr. According to Mr. De, Section 3 of West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 provides posts to be created and approved by State and no college is authorised to give appointment without prior sanction. This Act has come into operation from 1st April, 1976. Mr. De submits that neither there is post of stenographer in college nor it could be created. Since the petitioner was selected on her application to the post of steno-typist she cannot come and contend that she is entitled to get the re-designation of her post as stenographer and is also entitled to get the same scale of pay what is paid to the stenographer. Mr. De submits that from the pleadings of the writ petition it appears that the petitioner admits that the posts are not equal. Therefore, there is no question of different classification amongst the similar class of employees. He also submits that the petitioner has no question about the placement of herself. Now she cannot come and question her appointment, which she has accepted long back. The petitioner is not permitted to approbate or reprobate, once she has accepted the post of steno-typist she cannot come and question her appointment nor she can claim the benefit of the scale for the post of stenographer. Mr. De cited the decision on delay and acquiescence and the decisions are reported in Aflatoon and others vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, AIR 1974 SC 2077 ; Ratni Devi and another vs. Chief Commissioner, Delhi and others, AIR 1975 SC 1699 ; M/s. Rup Diamonds and others vs. Union of India and others, (1989) 2 SCC 356 ; Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others, (2011) 1 SCC; Mandan Lal and others vs. State of J & K and others, (1995) 3 SCC 486 and Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309 . Mr. De submits that the judgments cited by Mr. Moitra are on different facts and circumstances and those are of no help in the present facts and circumstances of the case. According to him, this writ petition should be dismissed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties who have argued the matter elaborately. The grievance of the writ petitioner is only against the creation of post under Memo No. 1095-Edn.(CS) dated 2nd December, 1998. According to him, this writ petition should be dismissed. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties who have argued the matter elaborately. The grievance of the writ petitioner is only against the creation of post under Memo No. 1095-Edn.(CS) dated 2nd December, 1998. There is no doubt that the writ petitioner appeared at the interview for the post of steno-typist and she was selected, she was given appointment in the post of steno-typist. However, under Chapter XIII clause 3 of the Calcutta University First Statute 1979 it was specifically provided as follows:- “For the purposes of these Statutes, the employees concerned are classified as follows – (a) Ministerial Staff comprising the posts of – (i) Office Superintendent, Cashier, Accountant, Head Clerk, Senior Assistant and Senior Clerk and such other posts as may be approved by the State Government. (ii) Assistant, Clerk, Library Assistant, Laboratory Assistant, Store Clerk, Store-keeper, Care-taker, Stenographer, Record Keeper, Collection Clerk and such other posts as may be approved by the State Government.” Therefore, as per Calcutta University First Statute the post of stenographer is included in the Ministerial staff of colleges i.e. non-teaching employees of colleges affiliated to the University other than Government colleges. Since the college affiliated under University of Calcutta is not a Government college the University Act and Statutes are applicable. The creation of posts including the Ministerial staff, lower subordinate staff etc. to be made as per the University guideline. But in the instant case the post of steno-typist which was created contrary to the terms of the Calcutta University First Statute, 1979. There is no doubt that the Government is the appropriate authority for sanctioning and creating posts and no post would be filled up without prior permission of the State Government but at the time it is obligatory upon the State authorities to create posts as per “nomenclature prescribed” and prescribed as per staff pattern as specified under the First Statute. Since the college is affiliated college, it is obliged to follow the University Statute and Act. The University Act and Statute, which are applicable, are also to be followed by the State authorities while creating the posts and filling up the same. Therefore, the initial creation of post of steno-typist is clearly in contravention of the relevant provision under the Calcutta University First Statute, 1979. The University Act and Statute, which are applicable, are also to be followed by the State authorities while creating the posts and filling up the same. Therefore, the initial creation of post of steno-typist is clearly in contravention of the relevant provision under the Calcutta University First Statute, 1979. It is to be considered whether there is any difference between the duty and responsibility of the steno-typist and the stenographer. The writ petitioner elaborately gave particulars of the duties discharged by her under paragraph 16 of the writ petition, which include taking dictation and making transcription of those dictation and to issue letters, maintaining important files and secret files relating to governing body’s meeting and other secret and confidential jobs and she also stated that she is to perform administrative computerised jobs. The duties and responsibilities performed by the writ petitioner in course of employment as steno-typist as stated in the writ petition under paragraph 16 reads as follows:- “16. Your petitioner states that your petitioner is claiming and discharging the same and identical work as Stenographer to the respondent College and in the event, the Principal/Teacher-in-Charge has been given daily dictation on several kinds of administrative work of your petitioner and your petitioner is going short-hand and also carrying out transcription the same by Computer type-writing to that College and also duties of your petitioner specifically as stated below:- (i) Your petitioner has been working as an assistant to the Principal from the date of appointment. (ii) It is the duty of the petitioner to be in over all maintaining some important files and secret files viz., Finance and G.B. minutes and work of delicate nature and various secretarial jobs and keep it completely confidential according to the instruction of the Principal. (iii) Your petitioner is taking short-hand dictation of the proceedings/minutes in the Governing Body meeting to that College on different issues of agenda, which may be involved as an additional work and there is neither any appointment of your petitioner by the G.B. of the College nor any allowance as yet relating to the said job. (iv) Moreover, your petitioner can competently and efficiently handle different kinds of administrative computerised jobs as and when her services is daily required for the interest of the College which are mentioned as under :- (1) Finance Confidential file, (2) Admission file, (3) B.Ed. (iv) Moreover, your petitioner can competently and efficiently handle different kinds of administrative computerised jobs as and when her services is daily required for the interest of the College which are mentioned as under :- (1) Finance Confidential file, (2) Admission file, (3) B.Ed. Course (4) Career Advancement, (5) College Service Commission, (6) Election, (7) Examination, (8) Faculty Improvement Programme, (9) Formation of G.B., (10) G.B. Notice, (11) Governing Body Minutes, (12) Grant-in-Aid, (13) Imput Form I & II, (14) Internal Practical Examiners, (15) Joint Entrance, (16) NAAC-Self Study Reports, (17) New G.B., (18) Non-teaching post creation, (19) Pay Fixation, (20) Refresher Course, Orientation Programme, (21) Remuneration of Guest Lecturers, (22) Seminar, (23) Students Aid Fund, (24) Sub-Committees, (25) Subject Affiliation File, (26) Staff Folder Appointment & Retirement, (27) U.G.C. Grant-in-Aid, (28) Teacher post creation, (29) University Grants Commission, (30) Letter go V.C. and so on.” The averments made in paragraph 16 of the writ petition are dealt with in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents. In paragraph 10 it was specifically stated that the answering respondents have nothing to say as regards the allegations made in paragraph 16 since those are related to college authorities. Therefore, it is evident that the respondent authorities have never denied the duty and responsibility, which are claimed to be similar to the post of stenographer, being performed by the petitioner in course of her employment. Now the question arises whether the writ petitioner although appointed as steno-typist as per approved memo is entitled to get the same benefit as given to stenographer. From the pleadings of both parties it is evident that there is basically no difference between the duties and responsibilities of a stenographer vis-a-vis a steno-typist. Therefore, for both posts similar duty and responsibility are to be discharged by the concerned employee whether he is employed as steno-typist or stenographer. Since these posts are coequal posts and the duty and responsibility are same, the difference of pay scale and other service benefits compared to the post of stenographer should be same and equal for the post of steno-typist. In my considered opinion, the classification is totally discriminatory. The sanctioning of the post is contrary to the University First Statute, 1979 and the payments made as salary and other benefits for these two posts should be same and equal. In my considered opinion, the classification is totally discriminatory. The sanctioning of the post is contrary to the University First Statute, 1979 and the payments made as salary and other benefits for these two posts should be same and equal. In this regard it would be very relevant to quote the relevant passage from the judgment of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have clearly interpreted the basic principle underlying in both the Articles, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India:- “The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose, J., ‘a way of life’, and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be ‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is anti-thetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice: in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Articles 14 and 16.” Therefore, it is now settled that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. But in the instant case, the writ petitioner was treated differently although she is similarly placed like a stenographer but she was paid less emoluments and less benefit in comparison to that of stenographer. Accordingly, the State authorities are to approve the post of steno-typist as stenographer and the petitioner should be paid equal emolument like the stenographer. The plea of delay taken by Mr. De is of no substance since the petitioner who was aggrieved against such appointment made representations before the authorities and the petitioner’s representations were not considered. Ultimately she had to come before this Court. This Court in her first writ petition directed the concerned respondents to decide her case. Accordingly, the Additional Chief Secretary considered the matter and rejected her prayer on the plea that there is no post of stenographer at any sponsored college in West Bengal and the petitioner was given time to come back if any such information is received by the petitioner. On that basis petitioner’s prayers were turned down and the petitioner filed the present writ application. Initially the writ petition was dismissed and thereafter, on appeal preferred by her, as per Appeal Court’s order this matter is heard on remand. Be it noted that against the impugned order dated 3rd March, 2008 the writ petitioner moved before this Hon’ble Appeal Court and the Hon’ble Appeal Court was pleased to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd March, 2008 and allowed the appeal. It was found by the Hon’ble Appeal Court that under Prayer “B” the memo dated 2nd December, 1998 is very much under challenge. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge is not correct. It was found by the Hon’ble Appeal Court that under Prayer “B” the memo dated 2nd December, 1998 is very much under challenge. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge is not correct. It was also recorded by the Hon’ble Appeal Court that the learned Single Judge did not go into the merits of this case on an erroneous premises that the approval granted by the Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal, creation of post of steno-typist in the college ought not to be challenged in this writ petition. However, the impugned judgment and order was set aside and matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. Therefore, there is no question of delay in moving this writ petition nor this point was ever taken before in the first writ petition or in writ appeal. Therefore, this plea is rejected by this Court. So far the acceptance and working in the post of steno-typist is concerned, the writ petitioner was aggrieved against it and in fact, she has moved against the impugned action and there is no question of approbate and reprobate. There cannot also be any waiver of petitioner's fundamental right as enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Since the writ petitioner is equally placed like stenographer and the petitioner is performing same duty and responsibility like the stenographer she is entitled to get equal pay and equal service benefits as that of stenographer. The judgments cited by Mr. De are on different set of facts and those are of no assistance to the State’s plea as raised. Therefore, the respondent authorities at their will may re-designate the post of the petitioner as per University First Statute. The respondent authorities are directed to give same financial benefit in favour of the writ petitioner as given to the stenographers on and from the date of disposal of this writ petition. However, the writ petitioner will be entitled to get notional benefit which will be counted and fixed as per rules at the time of her retirement, on the basis of pay scale and other benefits like as stenographer. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. There would be no order as to costs.