IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14382 of 2008 GHAUSIA PERWEEN TAJ, D/O MD.QUAMRUZZAMAN, R/O VILLAGE-JHINGAKATTA, P.S.-BAHADURGANJ, DISTRICT-KISHANGANJ. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESORUCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KISHANGANJ. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KISHANGANJ. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BAHADURGANJ, KISHANGANJ. 6. THE EDUCATION OFFICER, BAHADURGANJ, KISHANGANJ. 7. PANCHAYAT SACHIV CUM SACHIV PENAL NIRMAN SAMMITTEE, JHINGAKATTA E, BLOCK- BAHADURGANJ, DISTRICT-KISHANGANJ. ………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 15.11.2011 Annexure-8 is the order of the B.D.O. dated 28.06.2008, by which the appointment of petitioner has been cancelled. The cancellation is only on the ground that as on 01.01.2006 petitioner’s age was 17 years and 11 months, i.e., one month short of required 18 years of age. The order itself shows that on the date of submission of application petitioner had completed 18 years of age, but the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that, as per the Rules, she should have been 18 years of age as on 1st January of the year in which the 2 process of appointment was initiated. This order was passed on a complaint of one Dinesh Kumar Singh. From the order, it is apparent that the petitioner had not concealed any fact and had not produced any forged or fabricated document and had not misrepresented before the respondents in any manner at the time of her appointment. It appears that only on account of mistake in interpretation of the Rules, petitioner was initially appointed by the employment agency which interpretation has been found wrong by the B.D.O. Now even if the interpretation of the B.D.O. is accepted, petitioner was short of only one month from the required age of 18 years as on 01.01.2006. This writ application was filed on 18.09.2008 with service of two copies of the same in the office of learned Advocate General. However, till today no counter affidavit has been filed in the case. After appointment and after serving the respondents for a considerable period, in the opinion of this Court, now 3 the respondents should not be allowed to cancel the appointment of the petitioner only on the ground that she was one month short of 18 years of age as on 1st January of the year in which the process for appointment was initiated. Admittedly, on the date of submission of application petitioner had completed 18 years of age. The impugned order of the B.D.O., as contained in Annexure-8, is therefore quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)