Per Yaqoob, J.;— 1. On perusal of the records, what emerges is that on 08.04.2005, Village Education Committee, Kallar Mohra after proper discussion had come to conclu sion that EGS Centres, more particularly, Mohalla Kass village Kallar Mohra is showing excellent performance, its continuation, upgradation upto the level of Primary School in future and for engagement of 2nd EV rules was recommended. 2. On recommendation of the Village Education Committee, appellant (Gulshad Begum) was engaged as 2nd EV Guide in EGS Centre Mohalla Kass village Kallar Mohra, by Zonal Education Officer, vide order dated 17.08.2005 for a period of one year. Subsequently, as per policy with regard to the up-gradation of EGS Centres to the level of Primary Schools and engagement/conversion of EVs as R-e-T thereof has been framed by the Government vide Government Order No. 322-Edu of 2008 dated 26.06.2008. Appellant working as EV in EGS Centre Mohalla Kass, Kallar Mohra from 17.08.2005 was formally engaged and posted as R-e-T purely on contractual basis in upgraded EGS Centre Mohalla Kass now primary School vide order No. ZEO/732-33 dated 09.10.2010, issued by Zonal Education Officer. 3. Respondent no.5 (Rukhsana Kousar) filed writ petition seeking quashment of the order dated 17.8.2005 with a further prayer to appoint her as R-e-T. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment impugned dated 27.04.2011. In terms whereof, the engagement order of the appellant as 2nd EV dated 17.08.2005 has been quashed with direction to the official respondents that since the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioner has been made in April, 2006, she has right to work on the said post, with a condition that in case, there is any impediment in her appointment on the count of eligibility, the respondents shall examine the same and pass appropriate orders, till then respondent (writ petitioner) shall be allowed to join as 2nd EV. The said judgment is the subject matter of this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Judgment impugned is not sustainable on two grounds: (i) that the order of engagement in favour of the respondent no. 5 dated 25th April, 2006 has been cancelled by the Zonal Education Officer, vide order dated 07.06.2006, which order has been challenged, therefore, her engagement order was not in existence, which the learned Single Judge has directed, to be given effect.
5 dated 25th April, 2006 has been cancelled by the Zonal Education Officer, vide order dated 07.06.2006, which order has been challenged, therefore, her engagement order was not in existence, which the learned Single Judge has directed, to be given effect. Supporting this submission, learned counsel contended that on 25.04.2006 when the engagement order was issued in favour of respondent no. 5, she was minor, as admittedly, her date of birth is 01.05.1988, so at the relevant point of time had not completed her eighteen years of age, thereof, was not eligible for being engaged as EV. As per scheme the minimum age prescribed is eighteen years; (ii) secondly, learned counsel contended that the position of the appellant, having been converted as R-e-T vide order dated 09.10.2010 has not been chal lenged, the writ petition as such is rendered infructuous. Further learned counsel contended that respondent no. 5 was a regular student of Government Degree College, Rajouri, at the time and she never joined on appointment. 5. While considering the submissions as made, it is clear that respondent no. 5, when she claims to have been appointed vide order dated 25.04.2006 was minor as she had not completed eighteen years of age. Secondly, said appointment order has been cancelled and the cancellation order dated 07.06.2006 has not been chal lenged. Appellant being 2nd EV, has been engaged as R-e-T vide order dated 09.10.2010 w.e.f 01.04.2008 which too has not been challenged. These all aspects appear to have escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge, as a result thereof, order impugned dated 27.04.2011 is unsustainable. Same is set aside. As a necessary corollary, writ petition filed by respondent no. 5 (writ petitioner) shall stand dismissed. 6. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Record produced by Mr. Ravinder Sharma, be returned to him.