IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9113 of 2008 SUMITRA KUMARI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 08.02.2010 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of the order dated 06.05.2008 contained in Memo No. 673 issued under the signature of Block Development Officer, Benipur. By the impugned order, petitioner’s appointment on the post of Panchayat teacher has been cancelled on the ground that on 01.01.2006, the petitioner was one day less than 18 years of age. Counsel for the petitioner submits that for filling up the vacancy on the post of Panchayat Teacher, applications were invited. The petitioner also applied for the post. Her date of birth is 02.01.1988. The selection for the post was made on 22.02.2007 and the appointment letter was issued. The petitioner had applied on 30.08.2006 and on that date, she had already completed 18 years of age. On the date of her appointment, she was more than 18 years. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why she should not be terminated from the service as on 01.01.2006, which is the year when the applications were invited, she has not completed 18 years of age and was one day less that 18 - 2 - years of age. Counsel for the petitioner submits that under rule 8(KH) of 2006 rules, it is clearly mentioned that on 1st January of the year of appointment, the candidate must have completed 18 years of age, it is not the year and month of January, when the applications are invited but the year of appointment which is relevant for deciding the issue. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state where it is said that since the petitioner’s appointment was made under the provisions of Panchayat Teachers (Appointment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 and the cut of date being 01.01.2006, the candidate must have completed 18 years of age on 01.01.2006. There is no statement so far rule 8 (KH) of 2006 is concerned, where it is mentioned that in the month of January of the year of appointment, candidate must be 18 years of age. This issue has already been considered and decided by this court. I find that show cause submitted by the petitioner in response to the notice issued to her, has wrongly been rejected by the respondent-Block Development Officer. In case of appointment of Panchayat Teachers under 2006 rules, Ist January of the year of appointment and not the inviting applications for appointments, is relevant. Accordingly, the termination order is quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all - 3 - consequential benefits on the respective post on which she was earlier holding. Akv/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)