- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The instant special appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26733 of 1995.
(2.) THE facts of the case as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellants are that an advertisement was made by the respon dent No. 3, the Manager of the institution on 8. 7. 85 in local newspaper advertising the three vacancies in Class IV THE appellants had applied in pursuance of the said adver tisement and an interview was held on 19. 9. 85 and three said appellants were ap pointed on the same date, Annexure 1 to the special appeal. THE said appointments were duly approved by the Additional District Basic Education Officer vide order dated 25. 9. 1985, Annexure 2 to the special and the appellants were allowed to work and they were paid their salaries upto February, 1991. THE institution was given the benefit of grants-in-aid scheme in the year 1992 and as the respondent No. 3 wanted to appoint his own men in place of the appellants, they had been restrained from working. THE ser vices of the appellants have never been ter minated nor any notice was ever served upon them. As the dispute arose between the parties, the appellants made a repre sentation before the respondent No. 1 and as the same had not been disposed of by the respondent No. 1 expeditiously the appel lants filed a writ petition No. 4352 of 1995 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 22. 2. 1995 directing the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the said representations of the appellants. In pursuance of the order of this Court the respondent No. 1 considered the representation of the appellants and rejected the same vide order dated 3. 7. 1995, Annexure 5 to the special appeal. At the time of deciding the representation the respondent No. 1 had given opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The respondent No. 3, the Manager of the in stitution made the averments before the respondent No. 1 that the documents filed by the appellants including the appointment letters were forged and fabricated documents. The appellants have never been appointed nor they had worked in the in stitution. The Principal, respondent No. 4 has categorically stated in her deposition in writing that she had been working in the institution since 1985 as a Principal and the appellants had never worked in the said institution. The respondent No. 1 after con sidering the entire evidence and depositions of the appellants as well as of respondents No. 3 and 4 rejected the claim of the appel lants. However, the respondent No. 1 has recorded the following findings of facts which go to the root of the cause and are very relevant for deciding this special ap peal. (1) The appellants No. 1,2 and 3 were below the age of 18 years at the time of appointment even if the alleged appointment letters were genuine one as their date of birth had been 1. 2. 68, 13. 7. 69 and 28. 9. 69 respectively and on the date of appointment, i. e. 19. 9. 85 their respective ages come to 17 years 7 months, 16 years 1 month and 18 days and 16years 7 days. (2) The appellants had filed forged and fabricated photo copies of the alleged appoint ment letters as in one of the copies instead of name of the appellant No. 3, the name of Shri Sriniwas Sharma has been mentioned, Annexure 4 to the C. A. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants preferred Writ Petition No. 26733 of 1995 before this Court. In the aforesaid writ petition the present appel lants have specifically admitted that they were below 18 years of age as in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, the appellants had accepted this findings rather than challeng ing it. The learned Single Judge after con sidering the arguments of the appellants and the respondents held that as there had been disputed question of fact, genuineness and veracity of the appointment letters etc is under challenge, the present appellants may file a civil suit. Hence this special appeal.
(3.) HEARD Sri A. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R. N. Rai and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. As the appellants do not dispute that they were under 18 years of the age on the date of appointments and there is a statutory bar as provided under Rule 6 of the U. P. Recognised Basic School (Junior High School) Appointment and Service Conditions of the Ministerial and Inferior Staff Rules, 1984 which expressly provides that a person shall be eligible for considera tion for the post of Class IV provided he attains the age of 18 years on first July of the year in which the vacancy is notified. Moreover, Rule 5 of the said Rules embar goes the appointment of any person who is not eligible under these Rules.;