Patna High Court - Orders
Pinki Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 6 January, 2010
Author: Dipak Misra
Bench: Dipak Misra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.25 of 2010
PINKI KUMARI aged about 22 years, D/o Sri Upendra Tiwari,
Resident of village Barisvan, P.S. Shahpur, District Bhojpur..
..Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna,
2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur,
3. The Block Development Officer, Shahpur, District Bhojpur,
4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Shahpur, District
Bhojpur,
5. The Mukhia, Gram Pnchayat, Barisvar, Block Shahpur,
District Bhojpur,
6. The Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Bariswan, Block
Shahpur, District Bhojpur,
7. The Principal, Madhya Vidyalaya, Bariswar, District Bhojpur..
...Respondents/Respondents
For the Appellant: Mr. Anil Kumar No. 1, Advocate,
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar No. 1 and
Mrs. Archana Sinha, AC to GP 14.
-----------
2 06.01.2010I.A. No. 64 of 2010:
This is an application for condonation of delay of 25 days in preferring this appeal.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the assertions made in the application, we are of the considered opinion that the delay in preferring the appeal deserves to be condoned and, accordingly, it is so ordered.
The interlocutory application stands allowed. As we have condoned the delay in preferring the 2 instant Letters Patent Appeal, we are inclined to take up this appeal for admission. Admit. On the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard.
In this intra court appeal the challenge is against the order dated 13.10.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10657 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge has declined to interfere with the order of termination that had visited the appellant on the foundation that on the date of appointment as Shiksha Mitra she had not completed 18 years of age and, therefore, there was no illegality in cancellation of appointment of the appellant on the post of Panchayat Teacher, inasmuch as the said appointment was not on the basis of any fresh consideration, but, in fact it was an absorption.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the appellant was appointed to the post of Shiksha Mitra, she was one month's short of 18 years of age and further while she had been appointed to the post of Panchayat Teacher on 01.07.2006, she had attained majority, and, therefore, there was no illegality warranting cancellation of her appointment as Panchayat Teacher and hence the learned single Judge had committed grave 3 illegality by declining to interfere with the impugned order of termination of the appellant.
In affirmation of the aforesaid order passed by the learned single Judge, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant could not have entered into service as Shiksha Mitra because of her having not completed 18 years of age in view of the decision rendered in Ragjawa Narayan Mishra and others v. The Chief Executive Officer, Bihar Rajya Khadi Gramoudyog Board & others (2006(1) PLJR, 410 (Full Bench). It is also canvassed by him that the appointment of the appellant on the post of Panchayat Teacher is not a fresh consideration, but, in fact, it was a fresh absorption of the appellant.
In view of the order passed by the learned single Judge, it is manifest that a clear finding was recorded that the appellant was appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra before she had attained the majority. This fact is not disputed. As per the law laid down in Ragjawa Narayan Mishra (supra) a person cannot enter into service before attaining majority, i.e. 18 years of age. In view of the aforesaid decision, there cannot be any iota of doubt that 4 the appellant could not have been appointed as Shiksha Mitra. When her initial appointment was itself ab initio void, the absorption of the appellant on the post of Panchayat Teacher is also illegal.
In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly it stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.
(Dipak Misra, CJ)
SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)