Case Background
The petitioner was appointed as a Tola Sevak. A Tola Sevak is a local level functionary whose appointment is made under separate rules relating to Tola Sevaks and Swayam Sevaks.
Respondent no. 12, another person from the same area, challenged this appointment by filing a complaint before the District Programme Officer (Literacy), Saharsa.
Acting on that complaint, the District Programme Officer annulled, that is cancelled, the petitioner’s appointment as Tola Sevak.
The petitioner did not accept this decision. He filed an appeal before the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Saharsa. This appeal was registered as Appeal No. 38 of 2016.
The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority allowed the petitioner’s appeal. It set aside the annulment order of the District Programme Officer and restored and affirmed the petitioner’s appointment as Tola Sevak.
Respondent no. 12 then challenged this order of the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority. He filed an appeal before the State Appellate Authority, Education Department, Bihar, Niyojan Bhawan, Patna.
The State Appellate Authority, by order dated 12.07.2017, set aside the order of the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority. It held that the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute concerning appointment of Tola Sevaks.
The petitioner then approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14334 of 2017, challenging the order of the State Appellate Authority.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar, heard the writ petition on 29.11.2021.
The petitioner was represented by Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate. The State was represented by Mr. S.C. Mishra, Standing Counsel 16.
The core grievance of the petitioner was that his appointment as Tola Sevak had earlier been protected by the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 38 of 2016. According to him, the State Appellate Authority wrongly interfered with that appellate order.
The State Appellate Authority, however, had proceeded on a pure question of jurisdiction. It stated that the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority did not have the legal power to decide disputes relating to appointment of Tola Sevaks at all.
Before the Patna High Court, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this question of jurisdiction had already been raised before the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority. At that time, the District Authority had rejected the objection and had held that it could hear the dispute. The petitioner relied on this to justify the District Authority’s order in his favour.
The High Court therefore had to see which authority was correct on the point of jurisdiction. For this, the Court examined the Bihar State School Teachers and Employees (Disputes Redressal) Rules, 2015.
The Court noted the preamble of the 2015 Rules. These Rules were made by the Government of Bihar in exercise of powers under Article 162 and Article 243 of the Constitution of India, Section 47 read with Section 146 of the Bihar Rajya Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, Sections 46 and 47 read with Section 419 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, and Section 38 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
The High Court then recorded what these 2015 Rules were meant to cover. The Rules provide a mechanism for redressal of complaints and appeals related to employment of teachers and non-teaching employees on fixed pay in elementary and higher secondary schools. This includes government aided and minority schools set up by Panchayat Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies under the notified Employment Rules, 2006.
The Court pointed out that Tola Sevaks do not fall within this category. They are not part of the teaching or non-teaching staff of elementary, high or higher secondary schools appointed under the 2006 Employment Rules.
The judgment next referred to the definition of “Niyojit Karmi” in Section 2 of the 2015 Rules. “Niyojit Karmi” includes librarians, clerks, peons and other employees of elementary, high and higher secondary schools who are employed according to the relevant engagement rules.
Again, the Court held that Tola Sevaks are not covered by this definition of Niyojit Karmi. They are not school employees appointed under the same framework.
Instead, the Court noted, Tola Sevaks are appointed under separate Rules of 2018 relating specifically to appointment of Tola Sevaks and Swayam Sevaks. Under these special rules, the appointment is made by a committee headed by the member of the concerned ward.
Those Rules of 2018 also contain their own appeal structure. The High Court recorded that any dispute with respect to appointment of Tola Sevaks must first be taken, within 15 days of such appointment, to the District Education Officer. Thereafter, a second appeal may be filed, again within 15 days, before the District Magistrate.
Thus, the Rules concerning Tola Sevaks contain a complete and self-contained procedure to challenge appointments. The Court emphasised that when a special provision has been created for appointment and challenge to appointment of Tola Sevaks, disputes regarding such appointments must follow that route only.
On this basis, the High Court concluded that the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 12 regarding appointment to the post of Tola Sevak. That Authority is meant to deal with disputes of teachers and non-teaching school staff falling within the 2015 Rules, not Tola Sevaks governed by the 2018 Rules.
Once this conclusion on jurisdiction was reached, the Court found that the State Appellate Authority had rightly set aside the order of the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority. The State Authority’s view that the District Authority acted without jurisdiction was “justified in the eyes of law”.
The Court noted that no good reason was shown by the petitioner’s counsel for interfering with the order of the State Appellate Authority. There was therefore no merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court dismissed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14334 of 2017.
Even while dismissing the case, the Court kept one door open for the petitioner. It specifically observed that it would be open for the petitioner to approach the “appropriate authority”, meaning the authorities mentioned in the special rules relating to Tola Sevaks. If he still wished to challenge interference with his appointment, he would have to follow that statutory route.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for people working or aspiring to work as Tola Sevaks and Swayam Sevaks in Bihar.
It clearly states that disputes about appointment of Tola Sevaks cannot be taken to the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority created under the 2015 Disputes Redressal Rules.
Instead, such disputes must go through the specific appeal chain given in the special rules for Tola Sevaks: first to the District Education Officer and then to the District Magistrate, both within the short time limits mentioned there.
For workers and complainants, this means that if they choose the wrong forum, even a favourable order there may later be set aside for lack of jurisdiction, as happened here.
The judgment also guides district and state level authorities to respect the separate legal framework for Tola Sevaks and to avoid mixing it with the framework for regular school teachers and staff.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, constituted under the Bihar State School Teachers and Employees (Disputes Redressal) Rules, 2015, decide disputes relating to appointment of Tola Sevaks?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that Tola Sevaks are governed by separate rules with their own appellate mechanism, so the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction over such disputes.
Issue: Was the State Appellate Authority right in setting aside the order of the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, which had restored the petitioner’s appointment as Tola Sevak?
Answer: Yes. Since the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction, the State Appellate Authority’s order setting aside that decision was upheld as legally justified.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior judicial decisions or case law have been cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14334 of 2017
Case Title: Kamal Kumar Rajak v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 132
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar
Date of Judgment: 29.11.2021
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents/State: Mr. S.C. Mishra, Standing Counsel 16
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging the order of the State Appellate Authority in relation to appointment of a Tola Sevak.
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
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.
