IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.277 of 2011 Dr.Punam Kumari, wife of Praveen Kumar Singh, resident of A-2, Pratap Residency, East Boaring Canal Road, Patna------------petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna 2.The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 3.The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna 4.The Principal, Balika Uchch Vidyalaya, Bakhtyarpur, Patna— ---respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the respondents :Mr.Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, AC to G.P.4 ----- 2. 26.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.7.2008 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna by which the service of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher, appointed by the Secretary of the School Managing Committee for the Project Girls High School, Bakhtyarpur, Patna has been terminated and other consequential reliefs. The petitioner has approached this Court almost two and a half years after passing of the order. On that sole ground the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. However, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had approached the authorities by filing a 2 representation on 30.8.2010. The same also cannot be a ground for delay in approaching this Court as the representation was filed after two years. However, even on the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner’s termination cannot be held to be contrary to law. The grounds upon which the petitioner’s service has been terminated are that on the date of appointment, i.e., 20.1.1985 the petitioner was under age, i.e., less than 18 years of age and her date of birth is 12.8.1967. In this regard the respondent relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court pursuant to which all the matters had been reexamined by a Three Man Committee. In the decision of the Supreme Court it has been laid down that minimum age for entry as an Assistant Teacher in Basic Schools has to be 18 years. In that view of the matter, the rejection of the claim for approval of the services of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 21.7.2008 cannot be held to be bad. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, harps upon the fact that the petitioner had submitted her joining on 2.1.1986 when she was more than 18 years of age. The issue here is the date of appointment of the petitioner and 3 not the date of joining. The appointment letter admittedly was issued on 21.1.1985 when the petitioner was minor and the same is therefore nonest in the eye of law. The validity of any appointment can only be tested on the basis of the appointment letter and the subsequent joining after completing 18 years of age can be of no legal consequence. Thus, it has to be held that the very appointment of the petitioner was illegal and the authority had rightly rejected the claim for approval of the services of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 21.7.2008. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s service has been terminated without issuing any show cause to the petitioner. In this regard the stand of the respondents is that in terms of the order of the Supreme Court the service of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the Basic School had to be reconsidered by the Three Man Committee. After the Committee was constituted the claims of the concerned Project Schools of 1984-85 phase and individuals were invited in prescribed form and on receipt of the claims the same were considered and examined by the Committee. It is the further stand in the counter affidavit that the 4 petitioner had also made her claim for consideration before the said Committee. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that there has been any violation of principles of natural justice in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, on a consideration of the entire matter, there is no merit in the writ application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/