IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14666 of 2009 1. PODDAR HARISHANKAR HIRA S/O LATE RAMDEO PODDAR VILL- BHATGAMA, UNDER GRAM PANCHAYATI- BHOGA BHATGAMA, P.S. RANIPATRA, BLOCK- PURNIA EAST, DISTT. PURNIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PURNIA-CUM-CHAIRMAN PANCHAYAT SEWAK SELECTION COMMITTEE, PURNIA 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PURNIA-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY PANCHAYAT SEWAK SELECTION COMMITTEE, PURNIA ---------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. J.K.Roy, Adv. For the State: Mr. Ray Shivajinath (AAG-4) Mr. Ray Saurabhnath (AC to AAG-4) ------------- 2. 18.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate dated 9.10.2009 holding that the petitioner was not validly appointed as a Dalpati not being 21 years of age and therefore he could not be considered for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sewak. The petitioner himself admits that on 12.2.1987 when he was selected by the Executive Committee and came to be appointed on 13.11.1987 as a Dalpati, he was not 21 years of age. Strong reliance is placed on an order of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 169 of 1989 to contend that the relevant date for fulfillment of the requirement of age is the date when the District Panchayat Raj Officer confirms the appointment. 2 The Division Bench has held that if on the date of approval the candidate had become 21 years of age has to be understood with reference to the date on which the approval is granted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer writing the words right of appointment as the date of approval. Rule 4 of the Bihar Panchayat Village Volunteer Force Rules, 1949 in its relevant extract reads as follows:- “4 (1) Subject to the approval of the District Programme Officer, the Executive Committee shall, for the purpose of commanding the force, appoint a Chief Officer from amongst the memebers of the force. (2) A member of the force, in order to be eligible for appointment aas the Chief Officer, must be- (3) Over 21 and under 30 years of age on the date of the appointment. The provision admits of ambiguity. The Executive Committee is competent to make the appointment of a person over 21 years of age on the date of appointment. It is this appointment which is to be approved subsequently by the District Panchayat Officer. If a person did not fulfil the condition of eligibility for appointment by the Executive Committee, the question of his confirmation cannot arise. If the Executive Committee violates the rule and appoints 3 persons below 21 years, and the District Panchayat Raj Officer is permitted to put his approval of such illegal appointment by the Executive Committee contrary to rules, this Court shall be perpetuating an illegality. It is trite law that if the original order is invalid, all subsequent actions are invalid and the question of ratification of such an original illegal order does not arise. The Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 1582 "Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan" at Paragraph 26 has held as follows:- 26. These principles of ratification, apparently do not have any application with regard to exercise of powers conferred under statutory provisions. The statutory authority cannot travel beyond the power conferred and any action without power has no legal validity. It is ab initio void and cannot be ratified. This aspect of the matter does not appear to have been canvassed before the Division Bench and therefore this Court, respectfully finds it difficult to grant relief on that reasoning. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)