JUDGMENT : Dipankar Datta, J. 1. The State of West Bengal and the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal call in question the judgment and order dated 11th July, 2014 passed by a learned Judge of this Court on W.P. 1014 (W) of 2008, being a writ petition presented by the respondent No. 1 (hereafter the writ petitioner). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Judge directed that the writ petitioner being "equally placed like stenographer and performing same duty and responsibility like the stenographer she is entitled to get equal pay and equal service benefits as that of stenographer" and accordingly, directed the appellants "to give same financial benefits in favour of the writ petitioner as given to the stenographers on and from the date of disposal of this writ petition". It was also observed that "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". 2. A short recital of the facts leading to presentation of the writ petition may not be inapposite. 3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Higher Education Department, C.S. Branch vide memo dated 2nd December, 1998 conveyed to the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal (hereafter the appellant No. 2) approval of the Governor to the creation of three additional non-teaching posts in Prabhu Jagatbandhu College, Howrah (hereafter the college) and appointment thereto in the usual scale of pay and allowances with effect from the dates of filling up of such posts during the current academic session but not earlier than the date of issue thereof. Out of the three posts, the post of steno-typist was a post that was created and approval thereof conveyed. The Governing Body of the college thereafter initiated a process of recruitment on the post of steno-typist. In such process, the writ petitioner was successful in figuring at the first position of the panel. By a letter dated 17th May, 1999 issued by the Principal of the college, the writ petitioner was offered appointment as steno-typist on a pay of Rs. 3,350/- in the scale of Rs. 3,350-90-3,800-100-4,700-122-6,325/-. The writ petitioner was required to join within 1st June, 1999 failing which the offer would stand cancelled. By a letter dated 17th May, 1999 issued by the Principal of the college, the writ petitioner was offered appointment as steno-typist on a pay of Rs. 3,350/- in the scale of Rs. 3,350-90-3,800-100-4,700-122-6,325/-. The writ petitioner was required to join within 1st June, 1999 failing which the offer would stand cancelled. The writ petitioner accepted the offer and joined the college as steno-typist with effect from 1st June, 1999. During the next almost eight years she served the college, the writ petitioner raised no objection to designation of her post as steno-typist. On 7th February, 2007, for the first time, the writ petitioner complained to the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Higher Education Department, C.S. Branch, with copies to the appellant No. 2 and the Inspector of Colleges, University of Calcutta (hereafter the University), to the effect that her service should be utilized for the post of stenographer and that the post of stenographer is more essential for administrative work of the college. The essence of the said letter seems to be that the writ petitioner intended re-designation of her post as stenographer instead and in place of steno-typist. The letter did not evoke any response resulting in a notice demanding justice dated 22nd March, 2007 being issued by her learned advocate. No positive result yielded, prompting the writ petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the first time by presenting W.P. 7625 (W) of 2007. She sought for a direction for change of her designation in terms of the Calcutta University First Statutes, 1979 (hereafter the First Statutes) in connection with her service in the college. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court granting liberty to the writ petitioner to submit a representation before the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Higher Education Department within a week. The Secretary was directed to pass a reasoned order while disposing of such representation upon granting opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner as well as other relevant parties. In terms of the order dated 28th April, 2007, the writ petitioner filed a representation dated 25th April, 2007 before the Secretary. She urged, for the reasons indicated in the representation, that she should be conferred the benefits that a stenographer enjoys including financial benefits. In terms of the order dated 28th April, 2007, the writ petitioner filed a representation dated 25th April, 2007 before the Secretary. She urged, for the reasons indicated in the representation, that she should be conferred the benefits that a stenographer enjoys including financial benefits. In compliance with the order dated 20th April, 2007, the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Higher Education Department heard the writ petitioner on 1st June, 2007 and he proceeded to pass the following order: "Smt. Sangita Sinha, now appointed as Steno-typist at Prabhu Jagatbandhu College at Andul Mouri, in the district of Howrah moved a writ petition before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, regarding her prayer for appointment as a Stenographer. I was directed by the Hon'ble Court in W.P. 7625(W) of 2007 on 20.4.2007, to dispose of the representation of Smt. Sangita Sinha after giving her the opportunity of hearing. Smt. Sinha met me on 1.6.2007, in presence of Director of Public Instruction, Govt. of West Bengal and represented her case. It was pointed out by Director of Public Instruction that the Stenographer has not been created in any of the sponsored colleges in West Bengal so far. Unless the post of Stenographer exists, the representation of Smt. Sangita Sinha for her appointment as Stenographer cannot be considered. The position was explained to Smt. Sangita Sinha by me. I also requested her to find out if there was any gap in information or not. She was further requested to find out if the post of Stenographer exists at any sponsored college in West Bengal or not and get back to me within a week. Smt. Sinha did not revert back to me on this issue. In view of the fact that the post of Stenographer does not exist at sponsored colleges in West Bengal, there is no room to consider the instant representation of Smt. Sangita Sinha for elevation to the post of Stenographer. The petition thus stands disposed of. Director of Public Instruction is requested to kindly communicate the decision to Smt. Sangita Sinha." 4. Challenging the aforesaid order of the additional chief secretary and the memo dated 2nd December, 1998, the second round of litigation was initiated by the writ petitioner. The writ petition was initially dismissed by a learned Judge. Such dismissal was carried in appeal. Director of Public Instruction is requested to kindly communicate the decision to Smt. Sangita Sinha." 4. Challenging the aforesaid order of the additional chief secretary and the memo dated 2nd December, 1998, the second round of litigation was initiated by the writ petitioner. The writ petition was initially dismissed by a learned Judge. Such dismissal was carried in appeal. An Hon'ble Division Bench set aside the order of dismissal and remitted the matter for fresh hearing. It was on remand that the writ petition was virtually allowed by the judgment and order under appeal. 5. Before examining the judgment and order under appeal, it would be necessary to bear in mind Government Order No. 831-Edn. (C.S.) dated 31st October, 1995 issued by the Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal, on the subject of rationalization of non-teaching staff pattern of non-Government colleges. The said order, which was not challenged in the writ petition, conveyed to all the non-Government college Principals the decision of the Government to prescribe revised norms for creation of non-teaching posts therein, throughout the State, as per the enclosed statement. The enclosed statement reveals that a college having roll strength between 751 and 2000 would be entitled to one steno-typist and a college having roll strength in excess of 2000 would be entitled to one more steno-typist. The statement does not reveal that the post of stenographer was created for non-Government colleges. 6. It stands to reason that bearing in mind the Government Order dated 31st October, 1995, an additional non-teaching post of steno-typist was created for the college and approval thereof was communicated by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal vide his memo dated 2nd December, 1998, referred to in paragraph 3 above. 7. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the learned Judge was impressed by the arguments advanced by Mr. Moitra, learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner, inter alia, to the effect that creation of the additional post of steno-typist in the college, on which she was appointed, was contrary to the regulations framed by the university to which the college is affiliated. Mr. Moitra had submitted that the First Statutes did not provide for the post of steno-typist amongst various posts of non-teaching staff, although it did provide for the post of stenographer. Mr. Moitra had submitted that the First Statutes did not provide for the post of steno-typist amongst various posts of non-teaching staff, although it did provide for the post of stenographer. In that view of the matter, it was urged before the learned Judge that the State Government erred in creating the post of steno-typist and in not extending financial benefits attached to the post of stenographer, which is much higher than that of steno-typist, to the writ petitioner and, therefore, the post of steno-typist ought to be corrected to read stenographer. 8. Needless to observe, Mr. Moitra reiterated the submissions that he had advanced at time of final hearing of the writ petition before us. Mr. Moitra also placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 2016 SC 5176 [State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh] and invited our attention to paragraph 55 thereof in support of his submission that the writ petitioner has been dealt with quite unfairly and unjustly and given a raw deal. 9. Let us now examine how far the learned Judge was justified in granting relief to the writ petitioner. It would be profitable to quote the relevant findings of the learned Judge from the impugned judgment and order, reading as follows: "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. (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 sub-ordinate 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 Statue, 1979. There is not 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." 10. After returning the aforesaid finding, the learned Judge proceeded to examine whether the classification is discriminatory or not and answered in the affirmative. This finding was, however, preceded by the observation that "there is basically no difference between the duties and responsibilities of a stenographer vis-Ã -vis a steno-typist and that since the post of stenographer and steno-typist" are "co-equal post 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". 11. Chapter XIII of the First Statutes of the University relates to the terms of employment and conditions of service of non-teaching employees of colleges affiliated to it other than Government colleges. Statute 3 thereof lays down that for the purposes of these statutes, the employees concerned are classified as "Ministerial Staff" and "Lower Subordinate Staff". 11. Chapter XIII of the First Statutes of the University relates to the terms of employment and conditions of service of non-teaching employees of colleges affiliated to it other than Government colleges. Statute 3 thereof lays down that for the purposes of these statutes, the employees concerned are classified as "Ministerial Staff" and "Lower Subordinate Staff". In terms of statute 5, appointments to all the posts referred to in statute 3 shall be made by the Governing Body in accordance with such rules as may be framed for the purpose by the State Government. That "Ministerial Staff" as explained in clause (a)(ii) of statute 3 of the First Statutes includes the post of stenographer, admits of no doubt. It also admits of no doubt that steno-typist ex facie is not included in "Ministerial Staff". But does it mean that creation of the post of steno-typist is contrary to the First Statutes, as held by the learned Judge? The answer is an obvious and emphatic "NO". The learned Judge, in our opinion, completely missed the words "and such other post as may be approved by the State Government" appearing towards the end of clause (a)(ii) of statute 3 of the First Statutes and without consideration thereof, arrived at an entirely erroneous finding. A proper analysis of clause (a) of statute 3 relating to "Ministerial Staff" and sub-clauses (i) and (ii) thereof would lead one to the unmistakable conclusion that sub-clauses (i) and (ii) are not exhaustive. While the posts which are expressly mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of statute 3 could always be approved by the State Government, it (the Government) was also clothed with the power by the relevant statute itself of approving other posts too, which do not find express mention in sub-clauses (i) and (ii). It follows as a logical corollary that appointments could be made by the Governing Body of colleges affiliated to the University on all the posts referred to in statute 3, meaning thereby the posts expressly mentioned, as well as on posts, not so expressly mentioned but as may be approved by the State Government in accordance with such rules as may be framed for the purpose by it (the Government). Although the Government Order dated 31st October, 1995 whereby the Government had prescribed the revised norms for creation of non-teaching posts in non-Government colleges throughout the State was part of the writ petition itself, the learned Judge overlooked it and failed to consider the effect, purport, import and scope thereof which, as noticed before, permitted creation of the post of steno-typist having regard to the roll strength of a particular college. 12. Significantly, no effort worth the name was made on behalf of the writ petitioner to prove the additional chief secretary wrong. Such secretary had observed in his order extracted supra that no post of stenographer existed at sponsored colleges in West Bengal. He had, prior to recording the same, even extended an opportunity to the writ petitioner to find out if the post of stenographer exists at any sponsored college in West Bengal or not and to get back to him within a week, which she did not. There being no other instance for drawing comparison the allegation that the writ petitioner has been erroneously designated as steno-typist instead of stenographer is without any basis at all. 13. It is now time to read paragraph 55 of the decision in Jagjit Singh (supra) relied on by Mr. Moitra. Paragraph 55 reads as follows: "55. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation." 14. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation." 14. It appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court on consideration of most of the previous decisions on the point of 'equal pay for equal work' proceeded to make the observations in paragraph 55 extracted supra. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down therein. However, what we have failed to comprehend is how the ratio of such decision fits in with the facts of the present case. We have not been shown that any employee of a sponsored college in West Bengal working as stenographer has been drawing a scale of pay higher than what the writ petitioner has been drawing. We have even tried to ascertain the scale of pay of such a stenographer, if pleaded in the writ petition, but in vain. We have also not been shown what the duties and obligations of such a stenographer are. Thus, the question of the writ petitioner being denied the fruits of her labour or being subjected to hostile discrimination by her employer enjoying a dominant position, does not arise in the absence of facts and figures in the writ petition. We are constrained to hold that the finding rendered by the learned Judge that the 'writ petitioner is equally placed like stenographer', is thoroughly perverse. 15. We are also surprised to find that the learned Judge brushed aside the submissions made by Mr. Dey, learned advocate to the effect that no post of stenographer exists in sponsored colleges, without any justification at all. Relief seems to have flowed more out of a perceived compassionate view of the learned Judge rather than based on any principle of law. Time and again, the Supreme Court has sounded caution that the high courts ought to exercise discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution giving due regard to the law and settled legal principles and not on the basis of sentiments. It seems such caution has been thrown asunder. 16. Time and again, the Supreme Court has sounded caution that the high courts ought to exercise discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution giving due regard to the law and settled legal principles and not on the basis of sentiments. It seems such caution has been thrown asunder. 16. We, accordingly, hold that sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of statute 3 of the First Statutes does not contemplate that apart from the post of stenographer, a post of steno-typist could never be created and approved by the State Government. The relevant clauses of statute 3, chapter XIII of the First Statutes itself permit creation and approval of such other posts as the State Government may consider necessary and that object having been given effect by reason of the Government Order dated 31st October, 1995, which was never under challenge in the writ petition, creation of the post of steno-typist is not contrary to or inconsistent with the First Statutes and the contra-finding recorded by the learned Judge is indefensible. 17. In view of the aforesaid finding, we do not consider it necessary to examine the other point raised by Mr. Dey as to whether the writ petitioner having taken the benefit of appointment on the post of steno-typist, which flowed from memo dated 2nd December, 1998, could turn around after 8 (eight) years and seek regularisation of service as stenographer, and further as to whether the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 is a bar to acceptance of the claim of the writ petitioner or not. 18. It is on this short ground that the writ appeal ought to succeed and accordingly succeeds. The judgment and order under challenge stands set aside, with the result that W.P. 1014 (W) of 2008 shall stand dismissed. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied, may be furnished to the applicant at an early date.