IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.263 of 2009 ACHHE LAL SINGH S/O RUDAL SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-NIRKHAPUR, P.S. SISAWAN, P.O. GYASPUR, DISTRICT-SIWAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRTE, SIWAN, 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SIWAN, 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIWAN, 6. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SIWAN, 7. MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT GYASPUR ANCHAL-SISAWAN, DISTRICT- SIWAN, 8. AWADH RAJ SINGH SON OF ASHESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NIRAKHAPUR, P.S. SISWAN, DISTRICT SIWAN. ----------- /6/ 03.12.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. This application has been filed by the petitioner for review of the order dated 17.02.2009, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14497 of 2009. The case of the review petitioner is that on account of the order under review dated 17.02.2009, he has lost his appointment and the writ petitioner got his appointment. The writ petition has been filed on the ground that arbitrarily the respondents have terminated the petitioner from his post of Panchayat Siksha Mitra, on which he had joined on 14.05.2005. Suddenly by an order dated 13.05.2005 contained in Letter no. 4, he was terminated from the post on the ground that on 1st of January, 2005, the petitioner had crossed age of 30 years. The writ application was allowed considering this fact that the impugned order dated 13.05.2005 contained in Letter No. 4 was completely in violation of the guidelines for appointment of Panchayat Siksha Mitra which indicated that on the 1st January of the concerned year in which the appointment was going to be made, the applicant must not be more than 30 years. In this case the advertisement was published in the year 2004, the writ petitioner had applied for the post on 21.09.2004 and as per the legal requirement on the 1st January, 2004 he should not have been more that 30 years of age. For some reason, if the appointment was not made in the year 2004 and fresh advertisement was published in the year 2005, in which applicant of 2004 was also there for consideration, with this condition that they are not required to file fresh applications. The advertisement was published in the year 2004 and for applicant of 2004, the terms and conditions would have remained same as it was in the earlier advertisement, the terms and conditions mentioned in the earlier advertisement was relevant, for considering their appointment. In this circumstance, the writ application was allowed that petitioner was not more than 30 years of age on 01.01.2004 as such he was rightly appointed and had joined the post on 10.05.2005. I do not find any ground for reviewing the order dated 17.02.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14497/2009. This Review Application is dismissed. Safik ( Mridula Mishra, J.)