A Bihar government teacher who was just 16 years and five months old when she was appointed in 2003 has had her termination in 2022 quashed by the Patna High Court, which held that her underage appointment could, at best, be treated as an irregularity, not a reason to punish her 19 years later.Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Sourendra Pandey were hearing Mala Kumari’s appeal against an August 9, 2023 order that had dismissed her challenge to her termination and the state appellate authority’s November 4, 2022 order.“It would be inequitable and a travesty of justice if we allow the concerned State authorities to initiate departmental proceedings…neither there has been any concealment on the part of the appellant nor the appellant has engaged in any sort of forgery…The appellant cannot be punished in the year 2022, i.e. after lapse of more than 19 years since her appointment,” the court said on September 9, holding that the authorities should have verified her documents when she was appointed instead of taking punitive action nearly two decades later.The court found that the case involved a genuine dispute over teacher’s date of birth, with her school records showing September 10, 1984, while her matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board showed September 10, 1986. It found no established forgery or tampering by her. Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Sourendra Pandey held that the teacher’s appointment based on the school leaving certificate could at best be treated as a mere irregularity. (Image enhanced using AI)Teacher’s ageKumari was appointed as a ‘Panchayat Shiksha Mitra’ for 11 months on February 18, 2003, and joined the Upgraded Primary School, Gurmiswa, Vaishali, on February 25. Without her matriculation certificate, the teacher submitted her mark sheet and school leaving certificate, both showing her DOB as September 10, 1984.She later became a ‘Panchayat Teacher’ under a July 1, 2006 government memorandum. In 2015, she obtained a duplicate matriculation certificate showing her DOB as September 10, 1986. Following a 2019 complaint, the teacher’s salary was stopped, and authorities alleged she had changed her DOB to secure the job. Her services were terminated on August 26, 2022.Rejecting the forgery allegation, the high court noted the conflicting DOBs and said an error in the matriculation certificate “cannot be ruled out”, finding a “bona fide dispute” over her DOB. “The appellant has not committed any forgery for the purposes of obtaining employment, much less altered her date of birth,” the court held, noting there was no allegation of tampering with the school leaving certificate and the Board had not disputed the genuineness of the 1986 certificate.Story continues below this adUnderage appointment ‘mere irregularity’The court said that if September 10, 1986 was treated as her correct date of birth, Kumari was only about 16 and a half years old when she was appointed in February 2003. That, the bench held, “would at best be a mere irregularity in the appointment”.The court stressed that the appointing authority should have verified her certificates in 2003 itself. Since the authorities failed to do so, the bench held that they could not take punitive action against her at such a belated stage “for no fault of hers”. The court also found that the termination order was contrary to the applicable 2020 service rules and was therefore illegal and liable to be set asideThe bench said this was not a case involving a forged caste certificate or forged matriculation certificate. It therefore held that the constitutional protection under Article 311 applied in her case.Teacher’s service capped at 42 yearsThe court, however, did not accept the 1984 date of birth for determining the maximum period of her service. It held that if the 1986 date recorded in the matriculation certificate was relied upon, Kumari could continue in service for a maximum of 42 years under the 2020 rules. She could not claim the benefit of the 1984 date in the school leaving certificate to extend her service beyond that limit.Story continues below this adThe high court ultimately quashed the August 26, 2022 termination order and the November 4, 2022 state appellate authority order. It also set aside the single judge’s August 9, 2023 order and allowed Kumari’s appeal. The court held that she was entitled to back wages “for the period she has worked”.