IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13328 of 2009 BIMLA KUMARI, wife of Ganga Sagar Prasad Sinha, resident of Village-Noawan, P.S.-Asthawan, District-Nalanda. ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Member District Teacher Niyojan Appellate Tribunal, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif, District-Nalanda. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif. 4. Block Development Officer, Asthawan, District-Nalanda. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Asthawan, District- Nalanda. 6. Panchayat Sevak, Gram Panchayat Raj, Noawan, P.S.-Asthawan, District-Nalanda. 7. Niyojan Committee Gram Panchayat Raj, Noawan at Noawan, P.S.- Asthawan, District-Nalanda. 8. Neelam Kumari, wife of Dukhharan Prasad, resident of village- Noawan, P.S.-Asthawan, District-Nalanda. ………….Respondents. ----------- 2/ 07.01.2010. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of the order dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Member District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Nalanda, Bihar sharif. By the impugned order two appeals were disposed off. Appeal No. 1383 of 2009, filed by the petitioner and Appeal No. 1311 of 2009 filed by Neelam Kumari (respondent NO. 8), were heard and decided analogous by a common order. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the appeal preferred by respondent No. 8 was allowed. Petitioner had been initially appointed on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra for eleven months. After completion of eleven months she was not selected for the post. Respondent 2 No. 8, Neelam Kumari was selected for the post. She continued for eleven months. Again, she was selected for next eleven months while, she was still holding the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra her services were absorbed, under the provisions of rule 20 (ii) of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) rule, 2006 and she became a Panchayat Teacher. Petitioner had challenged the appointment of respondent No. 8 on the post of Panchayt Shiksha Mitra, alleging that respondent No. 8 was more than 33 years of age on 1st January of the year in which she was appointed. An objection had been filed by the petitioner and an ex-parte enquiry was conducted, without issuing any notice to respondent No. 8. The Block Development Officer, on the basis of such enquiry passed an order terminating the services of respondent No. 8. The termination order was challenged by respondent No. 8 in Appeal No. 1311 of 2009. Petitioner, in the meantime, challenging the appointment of respondent No. 8 filed C.W.J.C. No. 6717 of 2007 which was disposed of, directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal. The petitioner filed Appeal No. 1383 of 2009. On perusal of the impugned order dated 07.09.2009 whereby both the appeals have been disposed of, I find, that there is no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. In case of objection raised by the petitioner regarding appointment of 3 respondent No. 8. The Tribunal has given reference of several decisions of the Apex Court as well as High Court. One of the decisions which has been referred is passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12147 of 1993 (Pawan Kumar & ors. Vs. The State of Bihar), where finding has been recorded that after the initial recruitment if the service of the petitioner has been regularized, on account of regularization, the infirmity, if any in the initial recruitment does not survive. This decision is applicable, to the case of appointment of respondent No. 8. In case any infirmity was there in the appointment of respondent no. 8 on account of her absorption on the post of Panchayat Techer that does not survive. On the date of her absorption she was less than the maximum age limit, prescribed for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Maximum age for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher is 40 years, and the respondent No. 8 was less than 40 years of age on the date of her absorption. On account of absorption, whatever infirmity was there in her initial appointment that has became non-existent and respondent No. 8 could not have been terminated from her post on this ground. Considering these facts, I do not find any merit in this writ application. It is dismissed. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)