JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioners who are appointed as Aaganbari Karyakarti on different dates after facing due selection process. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 2.6.1980 and petitioner No. 2 was appointed on 4.6.1980 and petitioner No. 3 was appointed on 30.12.1981. It is stated that since their appointment they are working as such. It is further asserted that the petitioners were appointed under the order dated 24.5.1980 and they took charge on the date specified against their name. The petitioners have applied for promotion to the post of Mukhya Sewika upon which they were directed to appear before respondent No. 1 along with original certificates on 10.8.1998 to the post of Mukhya Sewika. Petitioners appeared before the respondent No. 1 and were duly considered for promotion to the post of Mukhya Sewika. The result of the examination for promotion to the post of Mukhya Sewika was published in the newspaper on 4.11.1998 but the result of the petitioners was not declared on the ground that they were under age as mentioned in clause (3) of the result declared and that their matter is still under consideration. It is further asserted by the petitioners that they were waiting for their result but ultimately on 27.1.1999 they Were informed orally by the respondents that their claims have been turned down on the ground shown in clause (3) of the result. It is stated that the petitioners were not served with any notice to the effect that their claim for promotion has been rejected on the ground of they being under age. It is further asserted that when petitioners requested for supply of such letter or order, the respondents denied to supply the same. The petitioners thereafter filed writ petition No. 6354 of 1999 which was disposed off by this Court vide order dated 9.3.1999 holding that this writ petition is premature. However, it was directed by this Court that the grievance of the petitioners may be considered by respondents and the appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order along with representation. Subsequently petitioners filed a detailed representation before respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with judgment and order dated 9.3.1999. The petitioners received order dated 1.5.1999 to the effect that their representation has been rejected on the ground that they have not completed 18 years of age on the time of their initial appointment as Anganbari Karyakarti. This order dated 1.5.1999 is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating in para 14 that the minimum age at the time of appointment as Aagan Bari Karyakarti was 18 years, since the age of the petitioners were less than 18 years at the time of their appointment as Anganbari Karyakarti, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was illegal. At the time of argument it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that the appointment of Aagan Bari Karyakarti and Mukhaya Sewika are made under the scheme of World Bank and the same is not appointment to any service under State. This appointment was purely ad hoc in nature, therefore, petitioners' claim that they have any right to promotion as they are claiming is without any basis and further that the petitioners' initial appointment was found to be illegal, therefore, they have no claim so far as the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned. So far as the petitioner No. 3 is concerned, because she has already been promoted to the post of Mukhya Sewika therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous so far as the petitioner No. 3 is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has accepted this argument and he does not press this writ petition on behalf of petitioner No. 3. Therefore, this writ petition is being considered for petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 only.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2003 (4) Education Service Cases page 2039; Smt. Sunaina Singh v. District Magistrate, Mua and Ors., wherein the Division Bench has held that the temporary appointment of the petitioner as an Aagarnbari Karyakarti is purely on ad hoe basis under a Scheme of the World Bank and same cannot be termed as a service under State, it is therefore submitted that since the petitioners do not have any right to appointment therefore, the order refusing to promote them cannot be challenged. Learned Standing Counsel further relied upon the decision reported in 1971 All. L. J. 983; Arya Kanya Pathshala, wherein the Division Bench has held that once the initial appointment is found to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of law, the incumbent cannot claim the benefit of the provisions of law.
4. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.