IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10657 of 2009 PINKI KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 13.10.2009 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner was initially appointed a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 6.2.2006. Subsequently she has been absorbed as Panchayat Teacher with effect from 1.7.2006 as provided under Rule 20 of Sub-rule (II) of Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service conditions) Rules,2006. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.8.2008 contained in Memo No. 431 issued under the signature of Block Education Extension Officer, Shahpur, whereby she has been terminated from her service for the reason that on the date of her initial appointment she was not eligible for appointment as she did not attain 18 years of age. She was less than one month four days so far attaining the age of majority is concerned. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that in the guideline for appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra only maximum age limit has been prescribed so far the minimum age limit is concerned no limit has been fixed. Secondly it has been stated though on the date, she was appointed as - 2 - Shiksha Mitra, she was not 18 years of age but the date when she was absorbed on the post Panchayat Teacher, she had already attained 18 years of age. Petitioner has placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in CWJC No. 2057 of 2009 (Sangita Kumar Vs. State of Bihar). The first ground taken by the petitioner cannot be entertained for the reason that this issue has already been decided by this Court a Full Bench decision in the case of Ragjawa Nr. Mishra. Vs. C.E.O. Bihar R.K.G. Board ( 2006(1) PLJR 410). The Full Bench had held that even if there is no minimum age limit prescribed for appointment on any posts, it will be presumed that 18 years is the age on which any one attains majority under Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act. Unless any person attains majority, he is not eligible to be appointed and entering into a contract for discharging the duties of the post. Since this issue is settled the ground taken by the petitioner for challenging the impugned order is not sustainable. The second point raised by the petitioner is that since on the date of her absorption on the post of Panchayat Teacher, she had already gained majority, as such her appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher can not be cancelled. This ground can also not sustainable for reason that her initial appointment itself - 3 - illegal and on account of petitioner’s continuation in her service on the basis of such illegal appointment she was absorbed on the post of teacher subsequent absorption, also cannot be considered as legal, on the basis of such appointment. The petitioner cannot be allowed to continue on the post. Unreported decision passed in CWJC No. 2057 of 2009 on which petitioner has placed reliance is also not applicable in the case of the petitioner, in that case petitioner on the date of first joining had already attained majority though on the date of submitting for application for appointment the petitioner was not major. There is clear difference in the facts of the present case and the fact of the unreported decision. For all the reasons, I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar