Case Background
The matter arose from the employment of an Assistant Teacher in a minority girls’ high school in Bettiah, West Champaran, Bihar.
St. Teresa’s Girls High School, Bettiah, had been recognised as a minority institution by the State Government on 14.03.1970.
Many years later, an advertisement dated 14.01.2012 was issued inviting applications for the post of Assistant Teacher in the school. The appellant applied pursuant to this advertisement.
She was appointed against an existing vacancy on a sanctioned post and joined her duties on 02.04.2012.
On 18.09.2012, the Secretary of the school forwarded her appointment to the Director of Secondary Education, Bihar, for approval under Section 18(3)(b) of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981.
On 10.09.2014, the Director, Secondary Education, issued Memo No. 786, approving the appellant’s appointment with effect from her date of joining. In the same memo, it was mentioned that, as per Education Department Resolution No. 921 dated 08.08.2013, Assistant Teachers appointed in minority schools after 27.05.2011 would receive a fixed salary equivalent to that paid to teachers appointed under the 2006 Teacher Appointment Rules.
The memo also directed that the competent authority must verify the appellant’s documents before releasing salary. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), West Champaran, verified her certificates.
Thereafter, on the basis of Notification No. 1530 dated 11.08.2015, the appellant’s salary was fixed by order dated 30.04.2016 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition).
For several years, the appellant continued in service under these terms. In 2019, she filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3717 of 2019 before a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court, challenging the fixation of her salary.
On 14.03.2024, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that salary fixation is a policy matter of the State Government and the Court cannot interfere with such policy decisions.
The present Letters Patent Appeal No. 376 of 2024 was then filed by the appellant against that dismissal order. The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya, heard the appeal and delivered the present judgment on 05.08.2025.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench first noted that the appeal was an intra-court appeal challenging the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3717 of 2019.
The appellant’s core grievance was that she was being paid only a fixed salary, at par with Niyojit teachers under the 2006 Rules, instead of the regular pay scale applicable to Assistant Teachers appointed on sanctioned posts in government and government-taken-over secondary schools.
The appellant’s counsel raised several arguments to attack the Single Judge’s order and the State’s salary policy as applied to her.
First, it was argued that the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) (Amendment) Act, 2011, which amended Section 18(3) of the 1981 Act, was silent on pay scales. According to the appellant, the primary purpose of that amendment was only to ensure that appointments made by managing committees of minority secondary schools were approved by the competent authority after verifying that the appointees had the minimum qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), which are uniformly applied to teachers in government, government-aided and minority secondary schools.
On this basis, counsel submitted that the amendment did not authorise the State to put minority school teachers appointed against sanctioned posts on a lower or fixed salary regime.
Second, the appellant’s counsel contended that since the appellant had been appointed and had joined service against a sanctioned post on 02.04.2012, she became entitled, from that date, to the current rate of pay applicable to that post. This salary, according to her, became due within seven days of the end of the month, that is by 30.04.2012, and could not later be reduced or altered by a State Government resolution issued in 2013.
Third, the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary School Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors., (2019) 18 SCC 301. Counsel emphasised that in that case the Supreme Court had dismissed the claim of Niyojit teachers seeking pay parity with teachers appointed against sanctioned posts, thereby upholding the State Government’s stand that Assistant Teachers appointed against sanctioned posts in government and government-taken-over secondary schools form a separate class entitled to a different pay scale. The appellant’s counsel attempted to use this reasoning to argue that, as a teacher appointed against a sanctioned post in a minority school, she should be treated on par with that separate class, rather than with Niyojit teachers.
Fourth, the appellant highlighted that the State Government had earlier extended the benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission to employees of minority schools through Education Department Resolution No. 787 dated 03.09.2010 (Annexure-13 to the supplementary affidavit). It was argued that this showed the State’s policy to grant proper pay scales to minority school staff and that the later resolution fixing salaries equivalent to Niyojit teachers was inconsistent.
The judgment also reproduces the amended provision of Section 18(3)(b) of the 1981 Act, as introduced by Bihar Act 5 of 2011. The amendment authorises the managing committee of a minority secondary school to appoint teachers against posts sanctioned by the State Government as per the eligibility and criteria prescribed under the Bihar Nagar Nikay Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment) Rules, 2006 and the Bihar Zila Parishad Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment) Rules, 2006, after obtaining approval of the Director, Secondary Education through the District Education Officer. It also provides that all pending cases for approval are to be disposed of by the Director.
According to the appellant, the Education Department misread this amended provision and, on that mistaken understanding, issued Notification No. 921 dated 08.08.2013. That notification prescribes that teachers appointed in minority schools against sanctioned posts after 27.05.2011 would receive a pay scale equivalent to that which the State had approved for Niyojit teachers appointed in government-taken-over schools, effectively placing them on fixed emoluments rather than regular scales.
On the other hand, the State’s counsel defended the Single Judge’s order and the salary arrangement. It was pointed out that the appellant’s appointment had been approved by the Director, Secondary Education, via Memorandum No. 768 dated 10.09.2014, specifically stating that she would get a pay scale at par with teachers appointed under the Teacher Appointment Rules, 2006.
The State submitted that, after the enactment of the 2006 Rules, a policy decision was taken to recruit teachers on fixed emoluments, and recruitment in Government Nationalised Schools was being done on that basis. In line with this policy, Resolution No. 921 dated 08.08.2013 was issued to provide fixed salaries to teachers in minority schools, maintaining parity of pay structure across different educational institutions.
After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Division Bench narrowed the controversy to a single question: whether the order of the learned Single Judge required any interference.
The Bench held that there was no valid reason to interfere. It reaffirmed the principle that fixation of salary and grant of pay scale in service is a matter of policy to be decided by the employer, in this case the State Government, and that the Court should not interfere in such policy decisions.
The Court also took note of Annexure 8 to the writ petition (the approval memo of the Director of Secondary Education), in which the salary condition applicable to the appellant was explicitly mentioned. The Bench observed that the appellant had accepted these terms and conditions of appointment and had rendered her services without any grievance until 2019, when she filed the writ petition.
The Division Bench then reiterated the settled legal position that the terms and conditions of service are governed by either the advertisement or the appointment letter, provided they do not conflict with any statutory rules or circulars having statutory force. In this case, the Court held that the appellant’s entitlement to salary/pay scale had to be governed by the terms of the approval of appointment made by the Director, Secondary Education.
In light of this reasoning, the Bench concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it. All pending applications in the appeal were also disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for teachers working in minority secondary schools in Bihar, especially those appointed after 27.05.2011 against sanctioned posts.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that pay fixation for such teachers, including whether they receive fixed emoluments or regular scales, is a policy matter of the State Government. Courts will not lightly interfere with these policy decisions so long as they are backed by rules, resolutions, and the express terms of appointment.
The judgment also underlines that once a teacher accepts an appointment along with the attached conditions, including the salary terms, and works for several years without protest, it is difficult to later challenge those very conditions through a writ petition or appeal.
For schools and education authorities, the decision confirms the validity of applying Education Department Resolution No. 921 dated 08.08.2013 and similar policy instruments to minority schools, provided appointments and salary conditions are clearly specified at the time of approval.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the Patna High Court interfere with the State Government’s policy decision fixing a minority school teacher’s salary at a rate equivalent to teachers appointed under the 2006 Rules, when that condition is recorded in the approval of appointment?
Answer: No. The Court held that fixation of salary and grant of pay scale is a State policy matter. Since the salary condition was explicitly mentioned in the approval and accepted by the appellant, and there was no violation of statutory rules, the Court would not interfere. - Issue: Are the terms of salary and pay scale for an Assistant Teacher in a minority school governed by general expectations of parity or by the specific conditions stated in the advertisement and appointment approval?
Answer: They are governed by the advertisement or appointment letter and the approval order, as long as these do not contradict statutory rules or circulars. In this case, the Director’s approval, including the salary condition, governed the appellant’s entitlement.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The appellant referred to State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary School Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors., (2019) 18 SCC 301, but the Division Bench’s decision itself does not turn on any detailed analysis of that case.
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 376 of 2024 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3717 of 2019
Case Title: Payal Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 852
Advocates: For the appellant: Mr. Cebin Mathew, Advocate; Mr. K.M. Joseph, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13; Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate; Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Abhinav Alok, Advocate; Mr. Arya Achint, Advocate; Mr. Anjanya Singh, Advocate; Ms. Sunita Singh, Advocate.
Nature of the case: Intra-court appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) against dismissal of writ petition (service matter relating to salary fixation of Assistant Teacher in minority secondary school).
Link to judgment: Patna High Court Judgment – LPA No. 376 of 2024
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
