IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5378 of 2008 NILU KUMARI, daughter of Sri Laleshwar Prasad Yadav, Resident of village- Jhingwa, Gram Panchayat Harari, Block- Marauna, P.S. Marauna, District- Supaul. ......Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Supaul, District- Supaul. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Supaul, District- Supaul. 6. The Block Development Officer, Marauna, Distict- Supaul. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Marauna, District- Supaul. 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Harari, Block-Marauna, District- Supaul. 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Harari, Block-Marauna, District- Supaul. .....Respondents. ----------- 2 24.01.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the order, vide Memo No. 01, dated 20.02.3008 issued under the signature of respondent no. 9, whereby it was directed not to take work from the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra since the petitioner was already 2 terminated due to her being under age at the time of submission of application for the employment as Shiksha Mitra. It is also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to produce letter no. 67-1, dated 16.02.2008, whereby petitioner’s service was actually terminated and prayer has also been made for reinstatement and payment of all consequential financial benefits. Subsequently, vide amendment the appellate order dated 11.09.2009 has also been challenged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the actual termination order has never been supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State is unable to suggest about availability of the actual termination order though he submits that Annexure 9 is the termination order which is not properly 3 worded. It appears, Annexure 9 is not termination order rather it is consequential order restraining the petitioner to work in pursuance of the termination order. The other contention of the petitioner is that petitioner was not given any opportunity before her service was terminated. The appellate order suggests that the appellate authority did not apply its mind due to the pendency of the present writ application. Definitely the present writ was filed in March, 2008 when the appellate authority was not constituted. An intervenor application has been filed on behalf of Anita Kumari making the claim that had the petitioner not been appointed as She was under age on the date of application, the intervenor would have been considered for the 4 appointment. In view of the submission of the intervenor, the intervenor application is allowed. Since the appellate forum has not decided the dispute due to pendency of the writ application, let the appellate authority decide the dispute in accordance with law. Let the appellate forum consider to condone the delay in view of the pendency of the writ application before this Court, it is expected that the appellate authority would also examine the action being taken against the authorities who did not examine the eligibility of the petitioner right from the date of acceptance of the application till her appointment. Since the petitioner did not misrepresent about her age, she is entitled for the honorarium for the periods she has already worked. It is 5 expected that honorarium will be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, writ application is disposed off. Bhardwaj (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.)