JAIDYA NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Judge dated 22 November, 2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 4372 of 2002 : Baidyanath Singh V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.

(2.) IN so far as the facts are concerned, it is best that the facts as are given in the order which has been challenged are reproduced : "The dispute in this case relates to retirement of the petitioner. It may be mentioned at the outset that there does not appear to be any dispute about date of birth of the petitioner, at least no such dispute has been raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit. The petitioner has been retired on completion of 40 years of service. According to the petitioner the age of superannuation having been fixed under Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code as 58 years, and his date of birth being 2,4.46, he is entitled to remain in employment of the State up to April 2004 and he cannot be prematurely retired earlier. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Naka Guard in the Forest Department on 4.5.62. His date of birth being 2.4.46 he was thus 16 years 1 month and 2 days old on the date of appointment. When this was pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner, and the Court observed that there cannot be appointment below the age of 18 years, counsel took plea that there is no bar to making appointment of a person below the age of 18 years. In response to the Courts further observation that if a 16 years old boy can be appointed, why not a boy of lesser age, counsel submitted that appointment can be made up to the age of 14 years. Counsel, perhaps, had in his mind the provisions of Article 24 of the Constitution. Counsel submitted that no minimum age has been fixed for appointment in government service until 1975 when this was purportedly done by circular."

(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that one of the decisions of the Division Bench on C.W.J.C. No.. 1728 of 1992 (Annexure 1) is, to the effect, that notwithstanding the fact that a person may have done work for 40 years and if he has completed 58 years of age, he will continue in service. Decisions noticed by the learned Judge were repeated before this Court. In this judgment the ratio decidendi are not there.