IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7090 of 2009 ISHRAT PARWEEN D/O ALLAUDDINE R/O VILLAGE RAMAPUR MAHESHPUR, PS. TAJPUR, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR -----------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THORUGH THE SECY. HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE B.D.O. MORWA BLOCK, SAMASTIPUR 5. THE BEEO,MORWA BLOCK DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECY. GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MORWA NORTH DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR 7. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MORWA NORTH DISTT- SAMASTIPUR 8. THE HEAD MASTER, PRIMARY SCHOOL MORWA URDU MORWA BAZAR PS- TAJPUR, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR 9. THE PANCHAYAT EDUCATION SELECTION COMMITTEE, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MORWA PS- TAJPUR, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR------- ---------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 7 14.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Annexure-8 is the order passed by Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, Raj Morwa North in the district of Samastipur. By virtue of this order the petitioner stands removed from the post of Panchayat teacher because at the time of her initial appointment she was less than 18 years of age. Since appointment was in breach of Rule 8 (Kha) which indicates that a person must have a minimum age of 18 years and maximum age of 37 years, in the year of employment. Age of the petitioner was found to be less than 18 years as on 1.1.2006 since she was born on 15.10.1988. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rule regarding appointment may be read in a manner that it must co-relate to the year of appointment and not when the process of appointment had been initiated. When appointment letter was issued on 6.3.2007 petitioner was more than 18 years of age. Mere initiation of process in the shape of advertisement in year 2006 does not go against the petitioner. The stand of the State is that it was found during course of - 2 - scrutiny that even under-age persons had come to be appointed as Panchayat teachers. This fact was brought to the notice of the Panchayat concerned by the communication of Block Education Officer, as would be evident from annexure-7. Thereafter the impugned has been passed. Further stand of the State in the counter affidavit is that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is not worthy of consideration because the rule also must be interpreted in the manner in which the legislature wanted it to be applied. When it talks in terms of minimum age on 1st January of the year of employment, the employment starts from issuance of advertisement, acceptance of applications, scrutiny thereafter and selection. If the rule mandates a person to be 18 years of age on 1.1.2006, the yard stick fixed for processing of applications of all the eligible candidates then by over sight or mischief if anybody came to be engaged in breach, the rule cannot be reinterpreted to mean that the age on the date of issuance of appointment letter should be considered and not the date when initial process for appointment was initiated. In addition to that counsel for the respondents has also brought certain materials to show that the petitioner was well aware that she was under age and therefore tinkering was done in the application form to show that her date of birth was otherwise. In this regard the so called application form filed by the petitioner is annexed as annexure-B to the counter affidavit. According to the State it also shows her guilty mind. In the rejoinder learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently denies that annexure-B in any way relates to her even though photograph is hers. Learned counsel disputes the signature on the - 3 - application as belonging to the petitioner. Since this Court is not a court of original jurisdiction and no trial is being held, this Court is not inclined to go into the nitty-gritty of the materials and the assertions made by the parties on authenticity of documents, though the Court has some doubts on the stand taken by the petitioner in this regard. According to this Court Rule 8 (Kha) of Bihar Primary Teachers (Employment & service) Rule 2006 categorically states that the minimum age of a candidate on 1st January, 2006 must be 18 years, which is the year of employment when advertisement and process of selection was initiated. By no stretch of imagination it can be read to mean the date of appointment. If such an interpretation is given then there will be no certainty with regard to the date of eligibility and it will be open to all kind of manipulation and interpretation by the power that be. Since there has to be a minimum standard and a cut of date for appointment being made within the public domain therefore the rule must be read to mean that minimum age of 18 years, of the candidate, must be achieved before 1st January in the year when the employment process began by issuance of advertisement. Since admittedly the petitioner was not 18 years of age on 1.1. 2006 therefore her initial appointment itself was in breach of Rule 8(Kha). Annexure-8 was issued only with a view to correct that error/infirmity. That being the factual and legal position no interference is warranted with annexure-8. - 4 - Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the petitioner has not been paid her salary for the period she has worked. This submission has some force because a Division Bench of this Court has already held in the case of Gautam Kumar Choudhary vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009(1) PLJR 589 that even in the case of illegal appointment, the person is entitled for payment of salary for the period he has worked. The claim of the petitioner in this regard will be verified by the concerned respondent who will take an appropriate decision for payment of salary of the petitioner for the period she has worked, which must be paid within a reasonable time frame, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. Since the original documents of the petitioner are in the custody of the Panchayat concerned, the Panchayat Secretary, i.e. respondent no.6 is directed to ensure that the original documents of petitioner are returned to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, if an application is filed by the petitioner along with a copy of this order. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction/observation. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)