IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12097 of 2009 Kumari Ranjeeta Chaudhari, D/o Shri Ashok Chaudhary, resident of Village Etwarpur Taj, P.O. Sharfuddinpur, Block Bochhan, District Muzaffarpur ………………………………………….…………Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Education Employment Appellate Authority, Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Block Development Officer, Block-Bochhan, District Muzaffarpur. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block- Bochhan, District Muzaffarpur. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat- Balthi Rasulpur, Block Bochhan, District Muzaffarpur. 8. The Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat- Balthi Rasulpur, Block-Bochhan, District Muzaffarpur………………… ………………….Respondents ----------- 3 08.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. In the first phase of appointment of Panchayat Shikshak, initiated in terms of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, petitioner applied for appointment on 19.08.2006, in the light of the advertisement published in the month of August, 2006. She was selected and got appointed on 29.12.2006, pursuant to which she joined. Thereafter her papers were examined and it was found that she had not 2 completed 18 years of age on 01.01.2006 to make herself eligible for appointment as prescribed in Rule 6 (kha) of the Rules. As such her appointment was cancelled by Panchayat Secretary vide his order contained in Memo dated 24.01.2008 as contained in Annexure-3. Petitioner appealed against the said order and the appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-6. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has moved this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though on 01.01.2006, petitioner had not completed 18 years of age but on the date of her application she had completed 18 years and six months and, therefore, she was eligible for consideration of her appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order of this Court dated 13.05.2009 passed in CWJC No. 2057 of 2009, as contained in Annexure-7, to contend that when the petitioner had completed 18 years of age on the date of her application, her empanelment and appointment could not be found 3 fault with. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order passed by this Court as contained in Annexure-7 was in respect of Shiksha Mitra. In the resolution providing for appointment of Shiksha Mitra in different Panchayats, no minimum age was prescribed. In the said resolution only maximum age was prescribed and, therefore, this Court found that on the date of empanelment the concerned petitioner had completed 18 years of age and, therefore, her appointment was valid. He points out that, as against the resolution providing for appointment of Shiksha Mistra, in the 2006 Rules, providing for appointment of Panchayat Shikshak, minimum age was also prescribed in Rule 6 (Kha). This rule, as it stood earlier to amendment, reads as follows:- 6. mDr fu;ekoyh] 2006 ds fu;e 8 ds mifu;e ([k) dk la’kks/kuA& fu;e 8 ds [kaM ([k)dks fuekuafdr n~okjk izfrLFkkfir fd;k tk;sxk%& “([k) fu;kstu o"kZ dh igyh vxLr dks mEehnokj dh U;wure vk;q 18 o"kZ ,oa vf/kdre vk;q lhek ogh gksxh tks jkT; ljdkj (dkfeZd ,oa iz’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx) n~okjk le;&le; ij fofgr fd;k tk;A fodykax mEehnokjksa dks vf/kdre mez lhek esa 10 o"kksaZ dh NwV nh tk;sxh% 4 ijUrq iz[k.M f’k{kd rFkk iapk;r f’k{kd ds izFke ,oa fn~orh; fu;kstu esa izf’kf{kr mEehnokjksa dh vf/kdre mez lhek f’kfFky jgsxhA ” He submits that admittedly, the petitioner had not completed 18 years of age on 1st of July, 2006 the year in which the process of appointment was initiated. Therefore, she was not eligible for her appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had not misrepresented or played any fraud with the respondents and, therefore, if she was appointed in spite of having not completed 18 years of age on 01.01.2006, equity demands that her services could not be terminated. This Court is not in favour of accepting submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled law that Rule laying down eligibility for appointment on a public post has to be strictly adhered to. Prescribing for eligibility for such appointment is within the domain of the employer. This Court cannot relax the same so as to cause infraction of the same. 5 Admittedly, petitioner had not completed 18 years of age on 01.08.2006 and therefore, she could not be appointed on the post. This is another thing that the petitioner had not committed any fraud got into collusion with the appointing authority, who appointed her in teeth of the Rules. For this, remedy lies to the petitioner elsewhere against the appointing authority, but for that reason, this Court is unable to hold appointment of petitioner as legal and valid on the face of specific provisions of the Rules. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Panchayat Secretary and the Appellate Authority. This application is dismissed. Since there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had played any fraud with the respondents, no recovery shall be made from the honorarium already paid to the petitioner for the period she had actually worked. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)