11 24.08.2026 Ct. No.17 J.Das FMA 266 of 2023 (Assigned) Manjura Bibi Sardar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal Mr. Basudeb Bag Mr. Soumen Pradhan Mr. A. S. Fazlul Karim Ms. Payel Khanra …For the appellant 1. This appeal is against an order dated 19 December 2022 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the same was misconceived. 2. Briefly, the appellant/writ petitioner alleges to be an employee as a valve operator in a pumping station at Molla Hati Water Supply Scheme. It was contended that the appellant was aggrieved by the decision to appoint a substitute in her place and urged that she must be recommended for the post once again. 3. In such circumstances, the appellant seeks directions on the respondent authorities to permit the appellant to carry out her duties as valve operator in the pumping station namely Molla Hati Water Supply Scheme which was being operated by the local Panchayat Authorities. 4. It was also contended that the respondent authorities be restrained from giving any effect to the recommendation to engage any new person by the Panchayat Authorities and from replacing the appellant. 2 5. By the impugned order, the Trial Court has arrived at a finding that the appellant did not have any enforceable legal right in seeking any order. The appellant’s identity card had been issued by one Mondal Enterprises which was the agency involved for implementation of the Scheme. The mere countersigning by an Assistant Engineer, Eastern Mechanical Sub-Division-I, Public Health Engineering Directorate did not entitle the appellant to the status of an employee of the State. The finding that the remuneration of the appellant was not paid by the State also does not warrant any interference. The appellant also alleges that her ancestors had provided land for the above Scheme which was being implemented and the appellant seeks employment on that basis. 6. There is no enforceable legal right which the petitioner has been able to demonstrate warranting any interference. There is nothing in the impugned order which justifies any interference with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court. There is no illegality nor perversity nor contravention of any law. The disputes raised by the appellant are private in nature and primarily between the appellant and private contractor. In the above facts and circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that the appellant has any vested right to the subject post. 3 7. In view of the above, the appeal is meritless and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.] [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]