JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing of the letter dated 12.06.2006, issued by the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2), whereby it has been stated that the prepositional statement sent for fixation of pay of the petitioner cannot be approved, because of the fact that the age of the petitioner is above for appointment of all the categories of the teacher and the petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the letter dated 12.01.2007, issued by the Secretary, Yogda Satsang (Respondent No. 5) pertaining to discontinuance of the service of the petitioner. 2. Sans details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner being fully qualified having done his M.A. and thereafter having undergone Teachers’ Training had obtained the certificate for Matric Trained vide Annexure-1. The Managing Committee of the Yogda Satsang Vidyalaya, Jagannathpur, Ranchi vide order dated 27.08.1999, appointed the petitioner on purely temporary basis, which was extended continuously from time to time as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.04.2003, the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the said post would be filled up on regular basis through the regular process of selection as per Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Thereafter, an advertisement was published under the signature of the Secretary of the School inviting the application for appointment of the post of teacher on 27.06.2003, vide Annexure-4. The petitioner in pursuance to the said advertisement applied, which was accepted by the Managing Committee and accordingly, letter was issued in favour of the petitioner directing the petitioner to appear on 31st August, 2003 as per Annexure-5. A list of candidates was prepared and published thereafter by the Managing Committee for the post of Assistant Teacher vide an order dated 03.09.2003, in which the name of the petitioner stood at Serial No.5. The interview of the petitioner was taken and vide order dated 03.09.2003, the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher by the Selection Committee as per Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Secretary of the School on 12.09.2003 and the petitioner was directed to join latest by September, 2003 as per Annexure-8. Thereafter, the appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Secretary of the School on 12.09.2003 and the petitioner was directed to join latest by September, 2003 as per Annexure-8. The petitioner pursuant to the said appointment letter joined the services on 15.09.2003 as per Annexure-9. A letter was issued by the D.S.E., Ranchi, dated 10.03.2004, stating therein, that the petitioner’s name has been approved vide a letter dated 16.01.2004, as evident from Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It has been further stated that the Deputy Director, State of Jharkhand, vide letter dated 29.04.2004 conducted an enquiry with regard to the age of the petitioner from the D.S.E., Ranchi as per Annexure-11 and reply to the said letter, the D.S.E. wrote a letter stating, therein, that in the letter dated 10.01.1986, issued by the Government of Bihar, Education Department, in para 5, it has been stated that there has been no minimum age fixed for appointment of teacher in minority School and for payment of salary, only bar is that the person should not be above the age of 58 years as per Annexure-12. Vide letter dated 12.06.2006, issued by the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi the prepositional statement for payment of the salary of the petitioner has not been approved by the Director, stating therein, that the age of the petitioner is more than the prescribed age for payment of teacher for all the categories, as evident from Annexure-13. It has further been averred in the writ application that one Smt. Swarnamayee Dev Burman, who was held to be over age, her age was condoned by the order of the Deputy Director, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, as evident from Annexure-14. Thereafter, the petitioner was dis-continued from the services by the order passed by the Secretary, Yogda Satsang Vidyalaya vide order dated 12.01.2007, as evident from Annexure-15 in I.A. No. 204 of 2007. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bharti Singh, learned J.C. to Sr. S. C. III for the respondent-State as well as Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5. 4. Mr. 3. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Bharti Singh, learned J.C. to Sr. S. C. III for the respondent-State as well as Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5. 4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no upper age limit for offering prepositional statement of a teacher in a minority secondary school by the Respondent-State for which the learned counsel relies on a Circular dated 10.01.1986 of the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, wherein, in paragraph 5 it has been envisaged that no minimum age limit for appointment of a teacher in the aided Minority Secondary School. During course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Ordinance, 1980, wherein, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 18, which relates to recognition of minority secondary schools and sub-rule (3) (f) of the said Rule provides that no grant shall be admissible for payment of a teacher or salary of a teacher or non-teaching staff, if appointed or retained beyond 50 years of age. 5. Controverting the statements of the petitioner in the writ application, counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State reiterates the submissions made in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondent-State by referring to the counter affidavit submits that as per the letter dated 20.02.1990, the teachers working in Primary/Middle/Secondary of non-Government aided (including minority) schools have been granted the similar benefits which is being given to the teachers working in the State Government. Since all such benefits are allowed to the teachers of non-Government aided (including minority) schools, therefore, the condition of age bar in appointment and in promotion also implies to the teachers of non-Government aided (including minority schools) as per Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi has again clarified and issued direction to all the District Superintendent of Education of the State. It has further been submitted that the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi has again clarified and issued direction to all the District Superintendent of Education of the State. From perusal of Para (Ga) of the Memo No. 2865, dated 30.11.2010, it will be evident that the teachers who have been appointed by adopting valid process and working on sanctioned post, are getting salary and other benefits similar to teachers working under the State Government. It has further been submitted that for appointment to the post of teachers in non-Government aided (including minority) schools conditions and qualification are same, which is applicable for appointment of teachers in Government Schools and it is further directed to strictly follow the rules/qualification and other conditions which is applicable to the teachers of the State Government relevant during the period of appointment as per Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that as per the order of the State Government, the maximum age limit for appointment to the post of teachers in the relevant year in the State Government in general category was 40 years, whereas, at the time of appointment of the petitioner, his age was 43 years, 07 months and 14 days, therefore, prepositional statement of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of over-age. It has further been submitted that so far as letter No. 0728/80-shi-25 dated 10.08.1986 is concerned, which was issued by the Director, Secondary and it is not applicable for the elementary School Teachers and after issuance of letter no. 237 dated 20.02.1990 also there is no implication of the letter issued by the Director, Secondary Education. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has further referred to the supplementary counter affidavit, dated 11.05.2016, wherein, it has been submitted that as per para 3 of the Notification No. 549 dated 06.03.2003, the upper age limit for general category for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher was modified and enhanced for 5 years. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has further referred to the supplementary counter affidavit, dated 11.05.2016, wherein, it has been submitted that as per para 3 of the Notification No. 549 dated 06.03.2003, the upper age limit for general category for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher was modified and enhanced for 5 years. This notification was issued by modifying the Notification No. 756 dated 29.06.2002 and Notification No.1126, dated 24.06.2002 as per Annexure-A. Since the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.02.1960 and he was appointed on 15.09.2003 by the School Managing Committee as per the Notification No. 549, dated 06.03.2003, upper age limit for appointment was relaxed by five years, which comes as 40 years on the date of appointment on calculating the upper age limit of the petitioner crossed on 01.02.2000, hence, the petitioner was over-age at the time of his appointment. 7. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 on the other hand supports the case of the petitioner by submitting that the Government Rules are not applicable in case of Minority Schools. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons : In pursuance to the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, the petitioner joined the services on 15.09.2003. There is no gainsaying of the fact that the school in question is a recognized minority Secondary School and the Schools get aid from the Government. The only restriction, which has been put, is that for teaching and non-teaching staffs appointed beyond the age of 58 years, no Government grant would be payable for payment of their salary and other benefits. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 18 of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Ordinance, 1980. The relevant provisions of Rule18 (3) (f) is quoted hereinbelow : - “(f) No grant shall be admissible for payment of salary of a teacher or a non-teaching staff if appointed or retained beyond 58 years of age” The aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that so far as the teachers, appointed in Minority Secondary School, there is no minimum age prescribed for appointment of teachers in Minority Secondary School. The grounds taken in the supplementary counter affidavit, dated 11.05.2016 relating to Notification No. 549, dated 06.03.2003, the aforesaid upper age limit has been modified and enhanced for five years and the same Notification has been issued by modifying the Notification dated 29.06.2002 and the Notification dated 24.06.2002 but the said Notification does not speak about the teachers in Minority Aided School, therefore, the said Notification dated 06.03.2003 vide Annexure-A is not applicable, rather, the Notification dated 10.01.1986 of the Director, Secondary Education and Rule 18 of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Ordinance, 1980 and sub-Rule (3) (f) of the said Rule would be squarely applicable to the petitioner. Moreover, the averment of the petitioner, so far as relaxation of age, condoning the upper age limit of one Smt. Swarnamayee Dev Burman by the order of the Deputy Director, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, as evident from Annexure-14, has not been controverted by the respondents, therefore, the averment of the petitioner goes unchallenged on the ground of doctrine of non-traverse. 9. In view of the aforesaid position, and the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 12.06.2006, issued by the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2) and the letter dated 12.01.2007, issued by the Secretary, Yogda Satsang (Respondent No. 5) are hereby quashed and set aside and since in the meantime, almost one decade has elapsed from the date of institution of the writ application, the concerned authorities of the Respondents and more particularly, the respondent no. 5 is directed to take immediate steps for reinstatement of the petitioner on the post in question, if the petitioner has not crossed the maximum age limit of 58 years, in the meantime, and the period from the date of termination, till the date of reinstatement in service, shall be considered for the purpose of continuity of service and since the petitioner has not worked for the aforesaid period, he shall not be entitled for any back wages for the period in service on the ground of ‘No Work No Pay’. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands allowed.