REKHA KUMARI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In the present writ petition the petitioner is seeking relief for quashing office orders as contained in Memo No. 305P dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure-1) and Memo No. 629P dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure-2) issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent No. 2) by which the claim for recognisation of the service of the petitioner and payment of salary have been rejected only on the ground that she (petitioner) at time of appointment was underage in the Project Girls High School, Gokulpur Block, P.S. Krityanand Nagar, District-Purnea.

(2.) It appears from the record that the local public in general has established a Girls High School at Gokulpur Block, P.S.-Krityanand Nagar, District-Purnea in the name and style of Girls High School. As per the scheme of the Government it was decided to open 300 Girls High School during financial year 1984-85 in different Block in the State of Bihar and for that in the first phase 75 schools were selected and identified as established school and thereafter rest 225 schools vide letter No. 142 dated 23.2.1985 were identified by Three Men Committee constituted on the direction of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh vs. State and Others, 2000 1 PLJR 287. As claimed this Girls High School was also selected as Project High School. It has been claimed that petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee on 16.3.1985 as Clerk in the school as being ward of land donor and accordingly she joined the school on 25.3.1985. She continued to work and enhanced the qualification up to graduation level.

(3.) In terms of report the Three Men Committee sent the name of teaching and non-teaching staffs working in the school on the day of its identification and selection and petitioner was one of the non-teaching staff. The services of other persons were treated as teaching and non-teaching employees of the aforesaid Project School but services of altogether eight persons were not recognized including petitioner on account of underage at the time of appointment is apparent from order dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure-1) and letter dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure-2).