IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15922 of 2011 Pankaj Kumar S/O Late Bindeshwari Paswan R/O Village - Mohammadganj, Ward No. 05, P.O. Mohammadganj, P.S. Chhatapur, District - Supaul ………………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Supaul 3. The District Agriculture Officer, Supaul 4. Naresh Kumar Bharti S/O Ram Pukar Yadav, ( Sl. No. 34 ) R/O Village - Mohammadganj Ward No. 05, P.O. Mohammadganj, P.S. Chhatapur, District Supaul 5. Shawti Priya D/O Jai Shankar Das, ( Sl. No. 472 ) R/O Village - Mohammadganj, Ward No. 05, P.O. Mohammadganj, P.S. Chhatapur, District - Supaul ………………… Respondents ---------------------------------- 02. 11.11.2011 Claim of the petitioner for appointment on contract basis as Kisan Salahkar came to be rejected. Petitioner was not told of the reason thereof, but when he filed an application under Right to Information Act, he was informed that the reason for non- consideration of his application was that he was less than 18 years of age. Submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioner based on the advertisement contained in Annexure- 1, is that the advertisement talks of the maximum age which should not be more than 65 years on 1st of July, 2009. Since the advertisement does not lay down the minimum age, therefore, rejection of the application of the petitioner for appointment on the post is discriminatory, if not arbitrary. It is also his stand that some other persons, suffering from similar disability, if at all with regard to age, have been considered and appointed, but only the petitioner has been targeted. 2 Merely because the minimum age has not been indicated in the advertisement, it does not mean that a minor can be appointed on the post as the appointment is based on a contract to be entered between the parties and a minor cannot enter into contract. Therefore, the minimum age required for such appointment will have to be read to be 18 years, even though it is not talked about in the advertisement. Any contract entered by a minor would be void. Therefore, a direction in favour of the petitioner in this background would be issuing a direction for indulging in an illegality, which a Writ Court would not do. So far as the allegation of discrimination is concerned that is a separate issue, for which the petitioner can raise grievance before an appropriate forum, But merely because some illegality has been committed by the authorities, may be in one or more cases, it does not make out a case for indulgence in favour of the petitioner. Admitted position that petitioner was less than 18 years of age when he claimed a right for appointment. Therefore, the reason for rejection of the application of the petitioner for such an appointment is based on rationale and law. Writ is dismissed. SKM (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)