IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18092 of 2009 1. NITU KUMARI W/O SR VINIT KUMAR TRIVEDI R/O VILL JURAWANPUR, P.S. BIDUPUR, DISTT-VAISHALI(BIHAR) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESORCES DEPARTMENT null PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINENDENT OF EDUCATION VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIDUPUR, P.S. BIDUPUR, DISTT-VAISHALI 5. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT JURAWANPUR THROUGH ITS PANCHAYT SECRETARY, P.S.BIDUPUR, DISTT-VAISHALI 6. THE HEADMASTER ,GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL JURAWANPUR(GOPALPUR), P.S.BIDUPUR,DISTT-VAISHALI ----------- 2 21.4.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of the Office order contained in Memo no.04 dated 27.11.2009, whereby her appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, in Government Middle School, Jurawanpur has been cancelled with immediate effect. The termination order has been issued on the ground that she was only 17 years 11 months on Ist January of 2005 i.e. the appointment year. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the guidelines relating to the appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, do not provide any minimum age, only 2 maximum age has been provided, on expiry of which one can not be considered for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. As provided in the guidelines, the candidate must not be more than 30 years, on the first January of that calendar year, in which he/she is going to be appointed for the first time. So far the petitioner is concerned, for the first time, she was appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005. On First January, 2005, she was 17 years 11 months, i.e. less than 18 years, but the date when she applied, she had attained majority and her age was 18 years two months. In this way, the date, she entered into contract and appointed, was major. There is no reason for cancellation of her appointment on this ground. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner on a decision of this Court in CWJC No. 2057 of 2009 (Sangita Kumar vs. State of Bihar and ors.). The case of the petitioner is identical to the case of Sangita Kumari Vs. State of Bihar & ors. This decision fully covers the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 3 27.11.2009 contained in memo no. 04 is quashed. This application is allowed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post; she was working at the time of termination, with all consequential benefits. The writ application stands allowed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar