IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6526 of 2008 GITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 5.5.2008 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.7.2007 contained in annexure-4 by which the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Harnahiya, District- Sitamarhi has passed an order restraining the petitioner from working as a Panchayat Teacher because of controversy in her age. The petitioner’s case is that she comes from extremely backward class. Under that category she was the only candidate for the post of Panchayat Teacher. Her date of birth is 13.1.1988. The advertisement was issued as per annexure-7 on 22.1.2006 and consideration of her case was made on 30.1.2006. The Mukhiya vide annexure-7 has come to a conclusion that the petitioner is aged below 18 years counting her date of birth from 1.1.1988. I think this is a very unreasonable approach. The petitioner is undoubtedly born on 13.1.1988 and, therefore, her age cannot be reckoned to 1.1.1988. This is the only reason for objecting to the petitioner being in service and stating that she was not 18 years of age on the date of her appointment. I find that the view is extremely unreasonable and cannot be upheld by this Court. In the circumstances I quash annexure-4 restraining the petitioner from working as a Panchayat Teacher 2 and direct that she may be allowed to continue to be in service as a Panchayat Teacher and be paid all her remunerations. This writ application is accordingly allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)