Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) IN the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing order dated 27.08.2009 issued by respondent No. 4 -District Superintendent of Education, Simdega whereby services of the petitioner has been terminated and further for reinstatement of the petitioner with all back wages alongwith statutory interest and consequential benefits.
(2.) THE facts, as emanated from the writ application, in a nutshell, is that pursuant to an advertisement published by the G.E.L Middle School, Baraibera, which is a Minority Government aided school run and managed for welfare of Tribal, in daily Hindi newspaper "Prabhat Khabar" dated 07.07.2005 inviting applications for the post of Trained Teacher, the petitioner applied for the same and after interview of the candidates by the Selection Committee of the said school, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher and appointment letter was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 27.07.2005 (Annexure 4). After her appointment, the petitioner discharged her duties with utmost satisfaction to the respondents -authorities. It is stated that on 19.01.2006, the Regional Education Officer, Simdega wrote a letter to District Superintendent of Education for approval of services of the petitioner. But despite serving for more than four years, when the petitioner was not paid a single penny, the petitioner represented before the Secretary, G.E.L. Middle School, Baraibera raising her grievances. But to the utter surprise and consternation, an office order vide Memo No. 1018/Simdega dated 27.08.2009 was issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Simdega whereby services of the petitioner was terminated vide Annexure 6 to the writ application on the ground that the petitioner was overage at the time of appointment. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination, the petitioner having no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances.
(3.) PER contra counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 repelling the contentions made in the writ application. It has been stated that at the time of appointment the age of the petitioner was 40 years 09 months and 7 days, as per the matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner, whereas, the prescribed maximum age limit was 40 years. It has been stated that so far Annexure 7 is concerned, wherein maximum age limit for Schedule Tribe is mentioned as 45 years, is effective from the date of issuance of notification i.e. from 14.08.2007, whereas the appointment of the petitioner was made on 27.07.2005, which is much prior to the date of issuance of Annexure -7. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim her appointment valid referring to Annexure 7 to the writ application.;