IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6768 of 2010 Kumari Meenu Chaudhary wife of Sri Jay Ram Chaudhary, Resident of Village-Akorhi, P.S.- Ramgarh, District – Kaimur (Bhabua). …… Petitioner. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.The Principal Secretary, Department of Primary and Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5.The District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabua). 6.The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Co-ordinator, Bihar Education Project, Kaimur (Bhabua). 7. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Co-ordinator, Block Resources Centre, Ramgarh, P.S. – Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabua). 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Mandipur,P.S. – Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabua). 9.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Bandipur, P.S. – Ramgarh, District – Kaimur (Bhabua). 10. The Head Master, Middle School Akorhi, P.S.- Ramgarh, District – Kaimur ( Bhabua )…… Respondents. For the petitioner: Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. N.Nandan, G.P.18. ---------- 4 14.12.2011 In the present writ application, petitioner has challenged the communication of the District Superintendent of Education, Kaimur (Bhabhua), contained in Memo No.196 dated 6.3.2010 annexed as Annexure-8, with which a list of teachers has been enclosed who were said to be minor in the year of their appointment. This list includes the name of the petitioner also who is shown to be of 17 years 7 months and 12 days of age in the year of her appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of advertisement though petitioner was minor, but later on the panel was scraped and under the orders of the Collector a fresh panel was prepared which is Annexure-6. He submits that when fresh panel 2 was prepared petitioner had become major. Hence, she was appointed in the school. Since the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that on the Ist January of the year she was appointed, she was minor, the District Superintendent of Education, by the impugned letter had directed for termination of her service along with others. However. till today no termination order has been issued and the petitioner is still working, however, without salary, as her salary has been stopped in view of the said direction. Counter affidavit has been filed in this case in which it is stated that on the date of her first application dated 20.9.2004 petitioner was minor. Hence, direction has been rightly issued for termination of her service in terms of the Government letter No.1060 dated 3.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the clarification issued by the Government Letter No.271 dated 13.5.2005, in the year 2005 fresh process of appointment was started, the age of the petitioner was calculated as on 1.1.2005. He submits that when the fresh panel was prepared later on by the respondents, on that date petitioner was found major by the respondents and, therefore, her name was included in the panel and she was appointed which is evident from Annexure-6.Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to a clarification issued by the Director, Primary Education, to the District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda, dated 3.7.2009 as contained in Annexure-12. He points out that this letter was relied upon by the respondent District Superintendent of Education while issuing direction of termination of the petitioner through Annexure-8. He points out that this letter clarified that since appointments of Sikcha 3 Mitra were to be made on the basis of contract for which an agreement had to be entered into no appointee below the age of the 18 years could validly enter into, no contract entered into by a person below the age of 18 years could be considered as valid. Hence, the requirement of completion of 18 years of age was necessary for appointment on the post of Sikcha Mitra on contract basis. He further refers to one Judgment of this Court in the case of Sangeeta Kumari Versus The State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 27, and another dated 27.06.2011 passed in the case of Anju Kumari in C.W.J.C. No.6128 of 2010. After going through the Judgment of this Court passed in Sangeeta Kumari (supra) this Court finds that the provision made by the respondents for completion of 18 years of age as of the year Ist January of the year in which the process of appointment was started has been held as unreasonable, and, therefore, the order of termination of the petitioner of the case was quashed as it was found that on the date of advertisement petitioner had completed 18 years of age. This Court finds that the said Judgment has been followed by this Court in its order dated 27.06.2011 passed in the said C.W.J.C. No.6128 of 2010. After considering the facts of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that the petitioner ought not to have been terminated on the ground that on the date of advertisement or application she had not completed 18 years of age. It is correct to say that the appointment on the post of Sikcha Mitra was being made on contract basis and for that an agreement had to be signed by both the parties. This is also correct to say that only a major could enter into a contract and a contract entered into by a minor 4 has to be treated as void as per the law. But in the case of the petitioner, at the time of final selection in the year 2005, she was found major, hence, her name was included in the list and she was appointed, vide letter issued by the Mukhiya dated 31.05.2011 as contained in Annexure-6. Since then she continued in service and after amendment of Rules she has become regular employee and she has got a tenure of service by becoming a Prakhand Teacher. In that manner she has continued almost five years. In the circumstance, this Court considers that it will be too inequitable to terminate petitioner’s services now on the ground that at the time of her first application she was minor. This is not the case of the respondents that when her appointment order was issued by Mukhiya she was minor or then she signed the papers at the time of joining she signed then as a minor. In the circumstance, the agreement signed by the petitioner as major has to be treated as valid agreement. As such the appointment of the petitioner cannot be held to be void on account of her entering into agreement as minor. The impugned order of District Superintendent of Education so far as the petitioner is concerned is, therefore, quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as validly appointed and release her salary, arrears as well as current, after enquiry with regard to the actual working person in school, positively within 9 months from the date of receipt / production of this order. AnilKrSinha (J.N.Singh,J.)