IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1638 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18440 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 7568 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 7569 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1638 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Department of Human Resources and Development, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director of Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 4. The Dy. Director of Secondary Education, Patna Division, Patna 5. The District Education Officer, Rohtas 6. The District Screening Committee, through the Collector, Rohtas 7. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents/Appellants Versus Sunita Kumari, S/o Kashi Nath Gupta, at present Clerk in Gangotri Pariyojna Balika Vidyalaya, Chhenari, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. S.D.Sanjay, AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4. 01-12-2011 Interlocutory Application No. 7568 of 2011: The delay of 91 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Patna High Court LPA No.1638 of 2011 (4) dt.01-12-2011 2 / 2 2 Letters Patent Appeal No.1638 of 2011: Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 18440 of 2010, the respondent-State of Bihar has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in 1982 in one Gangotri Pariyojna Valika Vidyalaya, Chenari, District Rohtas, a non-Government Secondary School. In 1984, the management and control of the said school was taken over by the State Government. The service of the petitioner was absorbed by the State Government. Having allowed her to serve for nearly 30 years her service was terminated on 15th September 2010 on the premise that on the date of her appointment in 1982 she was underage i.e. less than 18 years of age. The challenge to the order of termination before the learned single Judge was upheld. The learned single Judge has held that on the date of taking over of the school and absorption of the petitioner in the Government service she had attained the minimum age of 18 years; she having been allowed to work for nearly 30 years, the order of termination of her service was not tenable. Feeling aggrieved, the State Government has preferred this Appeal. We see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)