IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1211 of 2011 Zeba Sheerazi, D/0 Md. Ehteshamuddin, resident of village- Jamharia, P.O.Arho, P.S. Dhamaul, District- Nawadah ……………………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The District Teacher Appellate Tribunal, Nawadah, District- Nawadah 3.The District Superintendent of Education, Nawadah. 4. The Block Development Officer, Block-Pakari Barawan, District-Nawadah. 5. The Mukhiya, Panchayat Raj- Belkhunda, Block- Pakari Barawan, District- Nawadah. 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat Raj- Belkhunda, Block- Pakari Barawan, District- Nawadah….. Respondents ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: Mr. S.P. Srivastava, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, A.C. to S.C.7 5. 3.11.2011 I.A. No.7321 of 2011 The interlocutory application has been filed for adding Smt. Kumari Girija Mishra as party respondent No.7 to the writ petition, who was the complainant before the Appellate Authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for addition of party is allowed. I.A. No.7321 of 2011 is, accordingly, disposed of. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking direction for quashing the order dated 8.7.2009 passed by 2 respondent No.2, the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Nawadah, by which the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher has been declared as illegal and cancelled. The case of the petitioner falls within a narrow compass. Admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner is 5.1.1988. She had applied for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher in the month of August-September, 2006, pursuant to an advertisement issued in the month of July of that year. She was declared successful and the letter of appointment was issued to her on 2.3.2007. Ultimately, the matter was taken by respondent No.7 before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority which, by the impugned order dated 8.7.2009, held that the relevant date for considering the minimum age of 18 years for the purpose of eligibility was 1.1.2006 on which date the petitioner had not completed 18 years of age and thus, she was not eligible for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher and, accordingly, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Appellate Authority is fit to be quashed on 3 the sole ground that before passing the same, no notice was issued or served upon the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to her and thus the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the normal circumstances, this Court would have accepted the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner so that the principles of natural justice are complied with. However, the principle of natural justice is not a mere formality which can be invoked without considering the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and without taking into account any prejudice that may have been caused on the ground of violation of the same. The admitted fact is that the petitioner was born on 5.1.1988 and further as per Rule 8(2) (b) of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers ( Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, the minimum age for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher having been fixed as 18 years on the Ist January of the year of recruitment, there is no scope for any argument by the 4 petitioner that she was eligible for appointment in the said year. In the said circumstances, no useful purpose can be served by remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority which though has committed a wrong by not following the principles of natural justice but it cannot take a different view of the matter even if the petitioner is given an opportunity of hearing before it in view of the statutory rules in force at the relevant time. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)