An appointment is invalid if the candidate has not attained the minimum age requirement at the time of appointment, thus rendering subsequent service approvals unlawful.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant inter alia challenging judgment dt.04.02.2012 so passed by the learned State Education Tribunal (in short, “the Tribunal”) in G.I Case No.137 of 2010 under Annexure-4. Vide the said judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the present appellant seeking approval of his services as against the post of Peon by quashing the approval of the services of the private Respondent No.4 in G.I.A Case No.137 of 2010.

2. It is the case of the appellant that basing on the advertisement issued by Khetramohan Science College, Narendrapur-Respondent No.3, on 10.09.1991 under Annexure-1, for appointment to various non-teaching posts, Appellant as well as Respondent No.4 made their applications as against the post of Peon. Pursuant to such advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Appellant was called to attend the interview on 29.09.1991 vide letter dt.24.09.1991 under Annexure-2. Appellant having been found eligible and on being selected was appointed as against the post of Peon vide order of appointment issued by Respondent No.3 on 04.10.1991 under Annexure-3. Pursuant to such order of appointment issued on 04.10.1991, Appellant joined as a Peon on 05.10.1991.

2.1. It is contended that Respondent No.4 was also appointed as a Peon pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1 vide order of appointment issued on 05.10.1991. In terms of such order, Respondent No.4 also joined as a Peon on 05.10.1991.

2.2. It is contended that the date of joining of the Appellant as well as Respondent No.4 was shown as 05.10.1991 in various documents available under Annexure-5 series. Even though both Appellant and Respondent No.4 joined as Peon on 05.10.1991, but since Appellant is older by age, his date of birth being 20.03.1964, vis-à-vis 10.06.1971 of Respondent No.4, Appellant was required to be treated as senior to Respondent No.4 as against the post of Peon.

2.3. But when the College became eligible and was notified to receive Grant-in-aid w.e.f 01.06.1994 as per G.I.A order 1994 and services of Respondent No.4 was approved against the 3^rd post of Peon by taking his date of joining as 11.01.1989 vide the order of approval dt.20.03.1996 under Annexure-2 series, Appellant challenging the same, approached this Court by filing OJC No.8718 of 1997.

2.4. It is contended that since both the Appellant and Respondent No.4 joined on 05.10.1991 basing on the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Appellant being senior in age, his services should have been approved as against the 3rd post of Peon, when the College was notified to receive Grant-in-aid under G.I.A Order, 1994. However, by taking the date of joining of Respondent No.4 as 11.01.1989, when his services was approved vide order dt.20.03.1996 under Annexure-2 series, the matter was carried to this Court in OJC No.8718 of 1997.

2.5. It is contended that during pendency of the Writ Petition before this Court and vide order dt.10.03.2010, the matter was transferred to the Tribunal and the same was re-numbered as G.I.A Case No.137 of 2010. However, prior to such transfer of the matter to the Tribunal by this Court vide order dt.10.03.2010, counter affidavits had already been filed by the State. In the said counter, a stand was also taken that since Respondent No.4 joined as a Peon on 11.01.1989, his services was approved and Grant-in-aid was released as against the 3^rd post of Peon in terms of order dt.20.03.1996.

2.6. It is also contended that during pendency of the matter before this Court, a counter affidavit by Responde