NATH RAY, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 1.7.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 1,.5.1999 passed by the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Avam Pustahar holding the petitioner not entitled for promotion on the post of Mukhya Sewika. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal are; The petitioner was engaged as Angvar Bari Karyakatri on 2.6.1980. The petitioner since her engagement as Angar Bari Karyakatri continued to work and discharged her duties. The appellant applied for being considered for promotion on the post of Mukhya Sewika. The appellant was called to appear before the Selection Committee vide letter dated 7.8.1998. The appellant appeared before the Selection Committee and was considered. The result of promotion was declared in which list the name of the appellant was not included. The appellant had earlier filed writ petition No. 6354 of 1999 along with three others Angan Bari Karyakatri claiming that the petitioners were entitled for promotion. This Court dismissed the writ petition as premature since no adverse orders were passed against the appellant at that time. This Court while dismissing the writ petition vide its order dated 9.3.1999 however, observed that the petitioners may raise their grievance before the respondents who may consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate order. After the judgement of this Court dated 9.3.1999 the representation was submitted by the appellant along with two other persons which were considered and rejected by the order dated 1.5.1999 of the Director, Bal Viokas Sewa Avam Pustahar. The Director in the order rejecting the representation observed that although according to the recommendation of the Selection Committee the appellant has secured more marks then the last selected candidate but since at the time of initial engagement of the appellant as Angan Bari Karyakatri her age was less then 18 years, she is not entitled to be considered for promotion. The Director also noted that vide Government order dated 3.12.1997 the minimum age of Angan Bari Karyakatri has been raised from 18 years to 21 years. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant along with two others challenging the order dated 1.5.1999. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide its judgement dated 1.7.2005 against which judgment this Special Appeal has been filed. The learned Single Judge relying on two judgements of this Court namely 2003 (4) Education Service Cases 2039 Smt. Sunaina Singh Versus District Maginstrate, Mau and another 1971 A.L.J. 983 Arya Kanya Pathshala and another Versus Smt. Manorama Devi Agnihotri and others dismissed the writ petition. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners did not have any right for appointment therefore the order refusing to promote them cannot be challenged.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal raised following submissions:- (i) The appellant was entitled for promotion as Mukhya Sewika since she was found to have secured more marks than the candidates selected. The fact that at the time of initial engagement as Angan Bari Karyakatri in the year 1980 the appellant was less than 18 years of age, was not a relevant fact for denying the promotion. (ii) Two Division Bench judgements raised by the learned single Judge namely Smt. Sunaina Singh (supra) and Arya Kanya Pathshala and another (supra) are not attracted in the present case. ;