JUDGMENT : Dipankar Datta, J. 1. These intra-court appeals call in question the judgment and order dated July 14, 2015 passed by a learned judge of this Court, whereby a writ petition [W.P. No.21903(W) of 2009] presented by Smt. Anima Karmakar (hereafter the writ petitioner) was disposed of with direction upon the respondents 5 and 6 i.e. the Secretary of Chuamashina High School (hereafter the school) and the Headmaster thereof respectively, “to carry out the order dated 20th November, 2009 passed by the District Project Officer, being Annexure- ‘P/6’ to the writ petition for further engagement of the petitioner for the post of para-teacher in the concerned school prospectively for her to serve as deemed to have been reengaged in pursuance of the said letter dated 20th November, 2009, her service to be thereby governed by the said Memo dated 22nd July, 2010”. It was further directed that the formalities must be completed by the respondents 5 and 6 within two weeks from the date of communication of such order and that for “the purposes of her remuneration, engagement will be taken to be from this date, i.e., 14th July, 2015”. 2. We have heard the appeals one after the other and hence propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order. 3. The pleaded case of the writ petitioner was this. Pursuant to a selection process conducted by the authorities of the school, the writ petitioner was selected, having figured at the first position of the panel, for engagement as a para-teacher in the school for teaching History. She was engaged on contractual basis, vide an agreement dated April 12, 2007 executed by and between the Secretary of the school and her, for a period of 1 (one) year at a consolidated pay of Rs.3,000/-. Having discharged the duty of para-teacher sincerely from April 12, 2007 till April 11, 2008, a commendation letter dated April 17, 2008 was issued in her favour by the Headmaster of the school; however, her period of service was not extended. Alleging that mala fide intention of some of the members of the managing committee of the school arising out of political considerations resulted in non-extension of her period of service, the writ petitioner had complained to the District Project Officer, Sarba Siksha Mission, Bankura, respondent no. 4 (hereafter the DPO) by her letter dated April 22, 2008. Alleging that mala fide intention of some of the members of the managing committee of the school arising out of political considerations resulted in non-extension of her period of service, the writ petitioner had complained to the District Project Officer, Sarba Siksha Mission, Bankura, respondent no. 4 (hereafter the DPO) by her letter dated April 22, 2008. It was followed by another complaint lodged before the District Magistrate, Bankura, respondent no.2 (hereafter the DM) dated October 8, 2009 wherein she asserted her right to continue as para-teacher citing certain Government circulars. This complaint bore fruit, in that the DPO informed the Secretary of the school by a letter dated November 20, 2009 as follows: “As directed by the District Magistrate, Bankura and the District Project Director, Sarva Siksha Mission, Bankura I am to request you once again to do the needful for further engagement of Smt. Anima Karmakar served as Para Teacher in History in your school within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of this letter forthwith with a copy to the undersigned. Again, I am sorry to let you know that any type of financial assistance may not be sanctioned in favour of the school as well as the post of Para Teacher may be withdrawn in case of non-compliance. This may be given top priority.” 4. The Secretary defied the said order, necessitating invocation of the writ jurisdiction of this Court by the writ petitioner. In the writ petition dated December 10, 2009, she prayed for the following relief: “A wit (sic writ) in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their agents to carry out the order passed by the District Project Officer, Bankura being annexure “P-6” to this petition for further engagement to the post of Para Teacher to the petitioner in the said school forth with and also in view of the order of the State Authorities, Government of West Bengal dated 22.06.2009 and also the letter of the Respondent No.4 dated 20.11.2009 in favour of the petitioner by giving engagement of the petitioner as Para Teacher in the said school forthwith and till such consideration of the said applications of the petitioner the post of Para Teacher of the petitioner in the said school should be kept in reserved for the petitioner pending final disposal of this application.” 5. The Government Order dated June 22, 2009 referred to in the above extract of prayer (a) appears to have been issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, School Education Department, Primary Branch. It reads as follows: “In continuation of order No.134-SE (Pry) dated 26/02/2009 of this department, this is to start that the contract of para teacher, who served satisfactorily will be renewed after a day’s on or in general if any exception is sought by any SLMC/M.C., as the case may be then the matter shall be referred to the DPO, SSM of the concerned district, at lest (sic at least) one month ahead of the existing contract. On receipt of such opinion, DOP, SSM shall get the matter referred and shall place a report with his valued opinion before the District Magistrate and the District Project Director, SSM for decision. This decision shall be communicated to the concerned SLMC/MC for execution. It is further to state that in such Primary Schools where SLMC has not been formed, the proposal for removal of para teacher, if any, shall be referred by the Head Teacher/Teacher-in-Charge of such Primary School to the concerned S.I. of Schools (Circle Project Co-ordinator-CPC). S.I. of Schools (CPC) by written order shall authorize the concerned Head Teacher/Teacher-in-Charge to renew the contract of existing para teacher after a day’s break. However, if any exception is sought, the procedure of 1st para above will be followed. This order shall take immediate effect.” 6. The State and its officers did not contest the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit. Although a counter affidavit dealing with the writ petition was filed by Mr. Niranjan Dangar in his capacity as the Secretary of the school, none appeared to contest the writ petition on his behalf or on behalf of the Headmaster before the learned judge. 7. Mr. Das, learned advocate for the writ petitioner had placed before the learned judge memo dated July 22, 2010 issued by the Officer-on-Special Duty and ex-officio Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, School Education Department, Primary Branch on the subject of re-engagement of para-teachers and contended that the writ petitioner is entitled to be reengaged as para-teacher and retained as such till she attains 60 years of age. 8. 8. The said Government Order sought to convey to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) the decision of the Government in the Education Department that all para-teachers duly engaged previously would continue to be engaged till they attain 60 years of age and that there would be no question of renewal of service, which was requested to be informed to all the school authorities. 9. Learned Additional Government Pleader who appeared for the State before the learned judge admitted that the school had not done the needful in the matter. Handing up to the learned judge a letter dated July 9, 2010 of the DPO addressed to the Secretary of the school, it was submitted that the addressee was reminded of his failure to take action for re-engaging the writ petitioner and he was again directed to re-engage her. While apprising the learned judge that the Government had since taken a decision not to re-engage para-teachers or renew their contracts, which were theretofore being renewed from year to year, he submitted that by reason of such decision it was no longer possible to renew the contract of the writ petitioner then, i.e. in the year 2015. 10. The operative part of the order referred to above was preceded by a discussion as to why the learned judge felt inclined to grant relief to the writ petitioner. We quote the same: “The matter of re-engagement by renewal of the contract of para teacher in respect of the petitioner was required to be done by the said Memo dated 28th November, 2009. As on that date or at least within 15 days thereafter the petitioner was entitled to being re-engaged as para teacher in History and her contract renewed. It may be that the Government had taken a policy decision of not renewing such contract prospectively from June, 2010 as submitted by Mr. Ganguly but the Government had also issued the said Memo dated 22nd July, 2010 addressing the situation created by such policy decision to the effect that the para teachers duly engaged previously will be engaged till they attain 60 years of age and that there will be no question of renewal of service. Ganguly but the Government had also issued the said Memo dated 22nd July, 2010 addressing the situation created by such policy decision to the effect that the para teachers duly engaged previously will be engaged till they attain 60 years of age and that there will be no question of renewal of service. The petitioner has been able to demonstrate before this Court that she was entitled to reengagement and her contract renewed for her to serve as para teacher as on 20th November, 2009 or within 15 days thereafter or lastly as on 9th July, 2010. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to such appointment and her service protected by the subsequently (subsequent) Memo dated 22nd July, 2010.” 11. Aggrieved by the success of the writ petition, the State and the Secretary are in appeal before us. 12. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellants in MAT 1281 of 2015 (respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition) while assailing the impugned judgment and order contended that no legal right of the writ petitioner had been infringed by any action of the appellants and hence, she deserved no relief. Referring to the counter affidavit of the Secretary of the school that had been filed before the learned judge, more particularly to a resolution dated May 31, 2008 of the Managing Committee, it was urged that the school was found to be in need of a para-teacher in English and since there were sufficient number of teachers to teach History, it was resolved not to engage the writ petitioner again and to take steps for engagement of a para-teacher in English. According to him, such resolution was duly brought to the notice of the DPO, yet, the DPO insisted on re-engaging the writ petitioner without appreciating the difficulty the students would face should the writ petitioner be re-engaged as para-teacher in History instead of engagement of a para-teacher to teach English. 13. Mr. Banerjee also drew our attention to another resolution adopted by the Managing Committee in its meeting held on December 8, 2009 (being part of the application for stay) after receipt of the DPO’s letter dated November 20, 2009. 13. Mr. Banerjee also drew our attention to another resolution adopted by the Managing Committee in its meeting held on December 8, 2009 (being part of the application for stay) after receipt of the DPO’s letter dated November 20, 2009. It was contended that the Managing Committee, conscious of the warning given by the DPO that financial assistance may be stopped and the para-teachers withdrawn from the school, reiterated the stand taken in the earlier meeting dated May 31, 2009 and authorized the Secretary to respond to the DPO. The submission that was advanced is that there being no requirement to re-engage the writ petitioner, it was not right on the part of the DPO to insist on the writ petitioner’s re-engagement. 14. Mr. Banerjee also raised the point of delay in approaching the writ court and, accordingly, prayed that the impugned judgment and order may be quashed. 15. Representing the appellants in MAT 1544 of 2015 (the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition), Mr. Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader asserted that in view of the changed policy of the Government in relation to engagement of para-teachers, the learned judge erred in the exercise of jurisdiction in making direction for re-engagement of the writ petitioner. Referring to a Government Order dated June 9, 2010 issued by the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, School Education Department, he contended that while the same ordained that existing para-teachers would remain engaged till they attain 60 years of age, no new engagement of para-teacher could be made after issue thereof. The writ petitioner, according to him, was not an existing para-teacher on June 9, 2010 and therefore, should have been declined relief. He, accordingly, prayed that the judgment and order under challenge be set aside and the writ petition dismissed. 16. We have not invited the writ petitioner to respond, for, the writ appeals are considered to be without merit. 17. The argument advanced by Mr. Banerjee to persuade us hold in favour of the appellants in MAT 1281 of 2015 entirely rests on the resolution dated May 31, 2008. Factually, what has been recorded could be true; but the problem lies elsewhere. There is neither any pleading in the counter affidavit nor is any documentary evidence annexed thereto in support of Mr. Banerjee to persuade us hold in favour of the appellants in MAT 1281 of 2015 entirely rests on the resolution dated May 31, 2008. Factually, what has been recorded could be true; but the problem lies elsewhere. There is neither any pleading in the counter affidavit nor is any documentary evidence annexed thereto in support of Mr. Banerjee’s contention that the DPO was duly apprised of the need of the school to engage a para-teacher in English, which dissuaded the Managing Committee to reengage the writ petitioner. We are not prepared to give any importance to the said resolution in view of the omission to bring on record proof of service of the said resolution on the DPO. Even in course of hearing the appeal we invited Mr. Banerjee to produce the relevant evidence, which he failed. Non-production of the evidence has to be regarded as fatal for such appellants. Not only that, the resolution dated May 31, 2008 has been pleaded in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. Paragraph 7 is verified as true to the knowledge of the deponent, Sri Niranjan Dangar. It appears on perusal of the record of appearance of members present in the meeting held on May 31, 2008 that he did not attend the same. It is, therefore, incomprehensible as to how the discussions and the resolution adopted in such meeting could be true to the knowledge of the deponent. No doubt improper verification is a curable defect but such defect should have been cured when the learned judge was in seisin of the writ petition. We are thus constrained to hold the opinion that the said resolution is not a valid piece of evidence that could be relied upon to defeat the claim of the writ petitioner. 18. That apart, the resolution dated December 8, 2009 also does not appear to have reached the DPO. What is distressing to note in such resolution is that a section of the members were of the view, without any reason being recorded, that the writ petitioner under no circumstances would be re-engaged. The reason that was cited in the previous resolution dated May 31, 2008, if at all such resolution was adopted, is conspicuous by its absence in the subsequent resolution. The reason that was cited in the previous resolution dated May 31, 2008, if at all such resolution was adopted, is conspicuous by its absence in the subsequent resolution. The language in which the resolution dated December 8, 2009 has been expressed lends credence to the writ petitioner’s allegation of political considerations playing a part in thwarting the directive of the DPO to ensure her re-engagement as para- teacher. 19. Significantly, it has not been shown that when the writ petitioner was initially engaged on contract there was no requirement of a History para- teacher in the school. Certainly, the Government would not bear the burden of salary of a para-teacher who is not required in the scheme of things. The fact that the writ petitioner was engaged as a para-teacher to teach History upon conclusion of a duly conducted selection process lends credence to the thought that a para-teacher in History was indeed required for the school leading to her engagement. Besides, there is nothing on record from the side of the Government to show what the Managing Committee recorded in its resolution dated May 31, 2008 regarding excess History teachers and inadequate English teachers are correct. In the absence thereof, the plea of the Managing Committee that service of the writ petitioner was not required cannot be accepted. 20. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order based on the contentions raised by Mr. Banerjee. MAT 1281 of 2015 stands dismissed. 21. Adverting to MAT 1544 of 2015, we record our displeasure at the attitude and course adopted by the appellants. It would appear from the DPO’s letter dated November 20, 2009 that it was issued on the instructions of the DM. A clear warning was sounded that failure to re-engage the writ petitioner would entail consequences. There being no documentary evidence on record to even show semblance of respect to the DPO by the Managing Committee of the school, it defies logic as to why the DPO thereafter maintained silence and did not take any initiative to proceed in terms of the last paragraph of the said letter. Surely, the inertia of the DPO emboldened the Managing Committee to flout not only the DPO’s order but in effect it amounted to defying the DM. Surely, the inertia of the DPO emboldened the Managing Committee to flout not only the DPO’s order but in effect it amounted to defying the DM. While the writ petitioner may have legitimately expected that the DM and the DPO would come to her rescue by appropriately conducting themselves to ensure that justice is done by ensuring her re-engagement, to her bewilderment it is the DM and the DPO who along with the State and one other feature as the appellants questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment and order. The appellants (read: the DM and the DPO) ought to have realized that by preferring an appeal, they have undermined their positions by supporting the reluctance of the Managing Committee of the school in re-engaging the writ petitioner without any plausible cause having been notified to them. 22. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner having been duly selected was entitled to re-engagement after expiry of the first year of contractual service like other para-teachers and that she has been subjected to injustice, so much so that her colleagues in different schools, who may not have encountered any difficulty in having their contracts renewed and were re-engaged have been enjoying the benefit of the changed policy of the Government and are entitled to continue in service till they attain 60 years of age. 23. Clause (3) of article 15 of the Constitution enables the State to make special provisions for women. In exceptional circumstances, women may be treated differently and preferentially. This was one such exceptional case where the State ought to have risen to the occasion and ameliorated the grievance of the writ petitioner considering the harassment meted out to her by the Managing Committee of the school. 24. We cannot attribute any fault of belated approach to the writ petitioner. After expiry of the contractual period of service, she immediately applied for extension/renewal. Despite clear directive of the DM which was conveyed to the Secretary of the school by the DPO vide letter dated November 20, 2009, the school audaciously refused to re-engage her. It is in such circumstances that the writ petitioner was left with no option but to approach the writ court. 25. Despite clear directive of the DM which was conveyed to the Secretary of the school by the DPO vide letter dated November 20, 2009, the school audaciously refused to re-engage her. It is in such circumstances that the writ petitioner was left with no option but to approach the writ court. 25. We are of the considered view that change of policy in the interregnum cannot work out to the disadvantage of the writ petitioner who had, in the absence of any incriminating factor, acquired a right to have renewal of the contract/extension of service. The learned judge by considering the dispute from the proper perspective has rendered equitable justice to the writ petitioner in the exercise of His Lordship’s discretion. There is no reason to interfere with such discretion. Accordingly, MAT 1544 of 2015 stands dismissed. 26. The order of the learned judge shall be implemented by the concerned authorities without any delay. There shall be no order as to costs. 27. Photocopy of this judgment and order, duly counter-signed by the Assistant Court Officer, shall be retained with the records of M.A.T. 1544 of 2015. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied, may be furnished to the applicant at an early date. Sahidullah Munshi, J. I agree.