additional counter), does not arise at all. All this, according to Mr. Swain, strongly suggests manipulation of records and falsifies the claim of the appellant of having been appointed against the 2nd post of peon against the consequential vacancy of Prafulla Kumar Agasti. Again, in the staff position submitted by the College, enclosed as Annexure-2 to the GIA case before the learned Tribunal, the date of joining of the appellant has been shown as 20.05.1989. In the approval order passed by the Director, Higher Education, the date of joining of the present appellant has been shown as 01.01.1989. Thus, three different dates namely, 01.01.1989, 20.05.1989 and 16.12.1990 have been projected as the dates of joining of the appellant. Therefore, learned Tribunal rightly held that there was manipulation of records. Ultimately learned Tribunal accepted the date of joining of the appellant as 01.01.1989 as reflected in the approval order. However, by such date the appellant had not completed 18 years of age and therefore such appointment was ab initio void as per the relevant rules. Since the very appointment of the appellant was unlawful, invalid and ab initio void, he is not liable to get grant-in-aid from the State
