IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18315 of 2008 BAHJAT FATMA, D/o Md. Idris Ahmad, resident of village and Post- Hariyath, Gram Panchayat-Hariyath, Block-Ali Nagar, P.S.-Bahera, District- Darbhanga. ………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Special Secretary-Cum-Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga, Bihar. 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Education-Cum-Area Officer, Benipur-2, Darbhanga. 7. The Additional District Magistrate (In-charge) District Grievance Redressal Cell, Darbhanga. 8. The Block Development Officer, Benipur, Darbhanga. 9. The Headmaster, Primary School, Kothbala, Darbhanga. 10. The Headmaster, Primary School, Baigani, Darbhanga. 11. Makrampur Gram Panchayat through its Panchayat Secretary, Benipur Block, District-Darbhanga. ………….Respondents. ----------- 2/ 10.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the impugned order contained in Letter No. 1091 dated 10.07.2008 whereby the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled by the orders of the Block Development Officer, Benipur, Darbhanga, on the basis of an ex-parte inquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner. The reason for termination of petitioner’s service is that on the date of appointment she was less than 18 years of age and as per Rule 8 (Kha) of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006, in the year of employment the person to be appointed must be of 18 years. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground on 2 which the petitioner has been terminated are arbitrary. It is stated that the impugned order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner without issuing any notice and providing any opportunity to show cause, as such, it is completely in violation of rule of natural justice and that is also one of the ground for challenging the impugned order. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State. In para 8 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that date of birth of the petitioner being 27.1.1988, on 1.1.2006 her age was 17 years 11 months and 4 days. In para 19 is stated that even though there was some delay in appointment, but the applicant must have been of 18 years on 1.1.2006, as per rule 8 (Kha) of 2006 rules. The counsel for the petitioner submits that under Rule 8 (Kha) the minimum age for appointment has been provided and in the employment year the applicant must be 18 years of age. In the present case, though, process of appointment was initiated in 2006 but petitioner was appointed on 19.01.2007 according to Rule 8 (kha) of 2006 rules, the applicant must be minimum 18 years of age on 1st January of the employment year. In petitioner’s case employment year being 2007 and his date of birth being 27.01.1988, on 1st January, 2007 the petitioner had already completed 18 years of age. The ground for which he has been terminated from his service is nonest ground. In case the petitioner would have been given an opportunity by issuing notice, prior to termination, all these matters would have been explained before 3 the Block Development Officer. Since, order was passed in absence of the petitioner, this error is cropped up in the order, which is completely illegal and arbitrary. This is a settle issue that even if the applicant was less than few days on the date of filing application for appointment but attained majority by attaining 18 years of age, on the date of appointment, such appointments cannot be cancelled on pure technical grounds. The impugned order passed by the respondent Block Development Officer for the aforesaid reasons cannot be considered as legal and proper rather, it is completely illegal and arbitrary, as such it is quashed. This application is allowed. Petitioner should be re- instated on the post where she was earlier appointed. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)