S.U.Khan - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER claims to have been appointed as Shiksha Mitra in Primary School, Narainpur District Azamgarh. District Magistrate, Azamgarh through order dated 6.2.2007 decided the matter against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No. 5-Smt. Kiran Tiwari. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. Earlier Smt. Kiran Tewari had filed a writ petition in this Court which was disposed of on 9.1.2007 with the direction to the District Magistrate to decide the matter. Advertisement was issued on 27.10.2005. 11 persons applied. Gram Shiksha Samiti selected the petitioner who was at Sl. No. 6 and Smt. Hem Lata Singh who was at Sl. No. 7. The resolution was passed on 22.11.2005. Respondent No. 5 was at Sl. No. 8. She was not selected as she had not produced the requisite certificate in original. The contention of the petitioner before District Magistrate was that certificate of working of respondent No. 5 as Instructor in Informal Education was of the period when she was only 15 years of age (such certificate holder is to be given preference in appointment of Shiksha Mitra). In the impugned order it is mentioned that the selection committee found that at the time when respondent No. 5 was working as Instructor her age was 17 years. In the impugned order it is mentioned that quality point marks obtained by respondent No. 5 petitioner and Smt. Hem Lata Singh were 53, 45.5 and 46.2 respectively. In the impugned order the D.M. has held that for appointment as Instructor of Informal Education no age limit is prescribed and the only qualification prescribed is that the incumbent should be High School. The D.M. accordingly held that respondent No. 5 could not be denied appointment only on the ground that at the time when she was appointed Instructor of Informal Education, she was less than 18 years of age. In the counter-affidavit filed by District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Azamgarh on his behalf and on behalf of D.M., Azamgarh it has been stated that there is absolutely no age restriction either maximum or minimum for appointment as Instructor in Informal Education. Copy of directions in that regard have also been annexed. Even if it is assumed that a person below 18 years of age cannot be appointed as Instructor in Informal Education still on this ground appointment of respondent No. 5 as Instructor in Formal Education could be set aside if directly challenged but as she had completed the said engagement, it could not be wiped out or refused to be considered on the ground that she was not qualified to be appointed/engaged as such due to deficiency in age. In this regard reference may be made to Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of A. P., AIR 1981 SC 1473, wherein it has been held that even if appointment is subsequently cancelled, all acts done during continuance of appointment are valid unless appointee is found to be rank usurper.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY there being no age restriction for appointment as Instructor in Informal Education, appointment of respondent No. 5 cannot be held to be illegal. Appointment as Instructor in Formal Education is not a service hence the restriction that no person can be given a Government job unless he is major cannot apply to that. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.;