KUMARI PRASUN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 28/2/2019 passed by the State Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 496 of 2018 by which the Appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 21/2/2015 passed by the District Appellate Authority, Katihar in Appeal Case No. 63 of 2013 has been dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appointment letter dtd. 20/3/2007 issued in favour of respondent no. 9 and for a further direction to the respondents authorities to appoint the petitioner in her place as she is above in the merit position than respondent no. 9.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is in narrow compass inasmuch on 28/7/2006 an advertisement was published for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher in Maheshpur Gram Panchayat, Ajamnagar in the district of Katihar. The petitioner having the qualification of Intermediate applied under unreserved category along with the respondent no. 9. A merit list was prepared on 1/9/2006 in which the petitioner was placed at serial no. 32 whereas the respondent no. 9 was placed at serial no. 33. The date of counselling was fixed on 20/3/2007 but the petitioner was not selected and was informed by the Panchayat Secretary that she was under age by two months by not attaining the minimum age of 18 years with reference to 1/1/2006 for appointment. Accordingly, she was not appointed and the employment unit completed the process of selection by appointing respondent no. 9 on 20/3/2007. The petitioner filed a complaint before the B.D.O., Ajamnagar stating therein that since the appointment was being made in the year 2007 and accordingly as per Rule 8 (Kha) of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment & Service Condition) Rules, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as "2006 rules"] the calculation of minimum age of 18 years should be made with reference to the recruitment year 2007 with cut off date as 1/1/2007.

(3.) However, the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the petitioner was informed about the same vide notice dtd. 07/08/2007. The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 13458 of 2007. The writ petition was disposed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Appellate Authority within eight weeks. However, the petitioner filed appeal after two years bearing Case No. 63 of 2013. The appeal was heard on merit and the District Appellate Authority vide order dtd. 21/2/2015 held that as per Rule 8(Kha) of 2006 Rules the candidate must be 18 years of age as on 1/1/2006 which will be relevant date for calculating the minimum age of recruitment. It was also observed that the selection committee is not competent to grant age relaxation and granting age relaxation by the appellate authority will be against the departmental rules.