IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1173 of 2008 SHADAB JAHAN . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhyay For the Respondent No. 6: Jahan Ara For the respondent-state: S.C.8 2. 08.03.2010 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner has challenged the order issued by the Collector, Muzaffarpur contained in Memo No. 1764 dated 15.11.2007. Termination order has been issued on the ground that on the date of her appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikchha Mitra, the petitioner was overage as she was 34 years 4 months of age. The maximum age limit for being appointed as Panchayat Teacher is 33 years. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is completely without jurisdiction as after petitioner’s absorption on the post of Panchayat Teacher under rule 20(3) of Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2008, termination order should not have been issued by the District Magistrate, but under rule 18, the Block Development Officer, was competent authority for passing such order. It is also submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that under rule 8(KH) of 2006 Rules, on the date of absorption, the maximum age limit should have been 40 years in the matters of female Panchayat Teacher. On 01.07.2006 i.e. the date when 2006 rule came into force, the petitioner was less - 2 - than 33 years of age, as such; the termination order is bad on this ground as well. Counsel appearing for the state has not received instruction, as such; no counter affidavit has been filed. Since the issue is to be decided considering the provisions under the rules and there is no dispute in fact, as such, the writ application can be decided even without counter affidavit. Admittedly, on the date of appointment as Panchayat Shikcha Mitra, the petitioner had submitted all her testimonials, credentials for consideration before the Sukh Suvidha Committee and only after examining everything, she was appointed on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra. Even though, she had crossed the maximum age limit, but there being no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner was appointed by suppressing the material facts from the respondents. It is also not in dispute that on being absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher, as provided under rule 20(3) of 2006 Rules, the petitioner became teacher. In the matters of appointed/absorbed Panchayat Teachers, as provided under rule 18 of 2006 Rules, Block Education Extension Officer was only competent for passing any order in the matters of appointment, transfer, termination and other service conditions of Panchayat Teachers. The District Magistrate could not have passed any order relating to termination of the petitioner on 15.11.2007 i.e. after 01.07.2006. - 3 - In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order is completely without jurisdiction. For the reasons stated above, I do not find that the District Magistrate has passed the order in accordance with law. It is, accordingly, quashed. The respondents-Block Education Extension Officer, Paroo, Muzaffarpur, the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Paroo North, Block-Paroo, Muzaffarpur and Headmaster, Middle School, Balak, Paroo, Muzaffarpur are directed to reinstated the petitioner and accept her joining. She will also be entitled for benefit of continued service and all other consequential benefits. This writ application stands allowed. Akv/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)