IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18440 of 2010 1. SUNITA KUMARI W/O KASHI NATH GUPTA AT PRESENT A CLERK IN GANGOTRI PARIYOJNA VALIKA VIDYALAYA CHENARI, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 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 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, PATNA DIVISON, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ROHTAS 6. THE DISTRICT SCREENING COMMITTEE, THROUGH COLLECTOR, ROHTAS 7. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2 20/05/2011 Order dated 15.09.2010 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna is under challenge in the present writ application. Director, Secondary Education has withdrawn or annulled the order by virtue of which her service was recognized/regularized in the school in question on the ground that at the time of her initial appointment in the year 1982 on the post of Clerk, she was only 17 years, 1 month and 11 days of age. Since she was less than 18 years of age at the time of initial appointment, her appointment or initial engagement was bad and any recognition given to her service after take over, therefore, - 2 - will have to be withdrawn. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that her initial engagement was in the school what is known as Gangotri Pariyojna Balika Vidyalaya, Chenari in the district of Rohtas. The institution was set up by the Villagers and was in the hands of a Managing Committee. The decisions were taken to appoint various persons but there were various kinds of responsibilities and the present petitioner also happened to be one of the persons who was chosen to work as Clerk. Subsequently, by virtue of a policy decision, this was one of the schools chosen for take over by the State of Bihar. The concerned legislation talked about taking over the assets and liabilities including the services of the persons who were employed in such schools subject to their eligibility and fulfilling the criteria laid down in this respect. Right from her initial engagement till the passing of the order impugned, petitioner has been rendering service in the school which will add upto almost 30 years now but on a spacious plea that the engagement of the petitioner under the private Managing Committee was of - 3 - age less than 18 years, the entire work or effort of the petitioner is being taken away on such a ground. One of the stands of the petitioner is that when the school was taken over, she was not a minor. There is no argument or debate over her otherwise eligibility for such appointment. Age is the only hitch coming in the way and that too being discovered after three decades. If the petitioner was a minor under the Managing Committee, she did not remain one when the school was taken over. Raking up such an issue is taking into consideration the extraneous material to deny the petitioner the benefits which had accrued to her and which she has been deriving for many a years now. Attention of the Court has been drawn to an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar circumstance which was the case of one Raj Baran Prasad and another Vs. State of Bihar and others (Civil Appeal No. 182 of 1994 disposed of on 14.01.1994). The Apex Curt held a similar view which has been urged at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, may be on the strength of the decision of the Apex Court. Stand of the State in the counter affidavit is that - 4 - their decision is based on the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 6626-6675 of 2001 and the recommendation of the three Men Committee constituted for examining the status of such project schools taken over in the year 1984-85. Since the authorities found this infirmity against the petitioner, therefore, the Committee viewed the matter with suspicion and decided to take away the benefits of recognition of her services. Since there is no other ground for passing of the impugned order contained in annexure-8 except that the petitioner was less than 18 years of age when she was initially engaged by the Managing Committee and it is not denied that she was major when the school was taken over in the year 1984-85, then this cannot form the foundation for taking away the benefit of 30 years which the petitioner has rendered in the school. This Court has no hesitation, not only based on the observation of the Apex Court’s decision contained in annexure-9 but also the facts of the case that the reason for passing annexure-8 is extraneous and arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in the - 5 - circumstances mentioned above, the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Annexure-8 dated 15.09.2010 stands quashed. This writ application is allowed. The petitioner shall continue to work in the capacity as a Clerk in the school in question as a non teaching staff of a taken over school. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)