- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:-- (i) To quash/set aside vide memo No. SSA/PAL/ADPO/0301/157, dated 27.11.2012 issued by the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programming Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Palamau (respondent No. 6) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been terminated by the respondent No. 6 on the ground of overage is not consider at the time of the selection and illegally selected and recommended by the concerned authority. (ii) For direction to the respondent to immediate reinstate the appointment of the petitioner with consequential benefit including due salary since November, 2011 to till yet. (iii) For direction to the respondents, during pendency of the present writ application pleased to stay Annexure-1 of this writ application. (iv) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled to the facts and circumstances of this case. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Para-Teacher on 3rd January, 2006. He disclosed his date of birth as 12th January, 1968 at the time of appointment. The said appointment was approved by the Block Education Committee. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 3rd February, 2012 on the allegation that in view of letter No. 185 dated 16.10.2003, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as, at the time of appointment, he was overage. The said letter dated 16.10.2003 prescribes the maximum age for selection as 40 years. The petitioner filed his show-cause reply on 9.2.2012 and after considering the representation of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 27.11.2012 has been passed in which after noticing his date of birth and the certificate which he produced at the time of hearing which discloses his date of birth as 12.1.1965 and taking into consideration the Resolution dated 4.8.2002 as well as the letter dated 16.10.2003, it was held that since the petitioner had crossed the maximum age limit for appointment, he should not have been appointed.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 6 and impugned order dated 27.11.2012 has been supported on the ground of letter dated 16.10.2003 and the Resolution dated 4.8.2002.
(3.) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner bringing on record a communication which he obtained through R.T.I. in which, it has been mentioned that in the Resolution dated 4.8.2002, there is no prescription for age limit and therefore, at the time when the petitioner was appointed, he was eligible for appointment on the post of Para-Teacher.;