Case Background
The two writ petitions were heard together by the Patna High Court because they raised a similar issue. Both petitioners are in-service teachers, appointed on a regular basis in government schools in Bihar.
They approached the High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction. Their main prayer was that they should be granted the Matric Trained Pay Scale. In simple words, they claimed they were entitled to a higher pay scale given to matric-trained teachers.
While hearing the matter, the Court raised a specific question to the lawyers. The question was whether the appellate authorities created under the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employee (Dispute Redressal and Appeal) Rules, 2020 had the power to decide such service disputes. The Court also noted that many similar writ petitions were pending before it involving claims about pay scale, promotion and other service benefits of teachers.
To answer this question, the Court examined the scheme and scope of the 2020 Rules and how they relate to the constitutional powers of the High Court and the role of appellate authorities in deciding disputed facts.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Court first traced how the dispute redressal mechanism for school teachers in Bihar has developed. Under Articles 162 and 243 of the Constitution of India, Sections 47 and 146 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, Section 419 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and Section 38 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the State of Bihar had earlier framed the Bihar State School Teachers and Employees (Dispute Redressal) Rules, 2015.
These 2015 Rules came into force on 13 May 2015. Under them, District Appellate Authorities and State Appellate Authorities were created at the district and state level. Those authorities were empowered to hear complaints and appeals relating to employment of Niyojit Teachers, Librarians and other Niyojit functionaries, who were generally appointed under various schemes on fixed remuneration.
Later, these 2015 Rules were repealed. By notification dated 25.08.2020, the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Dispute Redressal & Appeal) Rules, 2020 were brought into force. They were published in the Bihar Gazette on 09.07.2021 but given effect from 25.08.2020. Additional power for framing these Rules came from Section 14 of the Bihar Private Teacher (Fee Regulation) Act, 2012.
The Court then reproduced and examined important parts of the 2020 Rules. These included the definitions of “Elementary School”, “Secondary School”, “Senior Secondary School”, “Aided/Permission for establishment/Recognized Secondary and Senior Secondary School”, “Teacher”, “Headmaster”, “Adhyapak”, “Principal”, “Assistant Principal”, “Non-teaching Employees”, “Bihar School Examination Board” and “University”.
From these definitions, the Court noted that the Rules clearly cover:
Government and nationalised primary, middle, secondary and senior secondary schools, including those under Panchayati Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies.
Aided and minority schools at different levels.
Private schools.
Aided colleges and universities under the Bihar State University Act, 1976.
Next, the Court looked at Rule 13 dealing with the “Powers and Function of the District Appellate Authority”. Under this, the District Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to:
Resolve disputes and complaints about recruitment procedures in schools run by Panchayati Raj Institutions and Urban Local Bodies.
Resolve disputes about recruitment and promotion of Headmasters, teachers and non-teaching staff in 108 Government aided elementary schools, including minority schools.
Deal with disputes about recruitment processes and distribution of grants-in-aid in aided and recognised secondary and senior secondary schools and aided colleges.
Decide disputes between Headmasters, teachers and non-teaching staff and the managing committees of private schools.
Entertain appeals by Headmasters, teachers and non-teaching staff working under government, aided and private institutions who are aggrieved by execution of their service conditions. This includes service issues like recruitment, promotion, pay, leave, disciplinary actions and similar matters.
The District Appellate Authority can summon persons, call for records, examine witnesses on oath and has powers similar to a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for enquiry and hearing. Complaints and appeals are to be filed within 30 days from the cause of action, with power to condone delay for reasonable reasons. As per Rule 17, the functions of the appellate authorities are deemed to be judicial functions, attracting provisions of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The State Appellate Authority under Rule 14 hears appeals against orders of the District Appellate Authority and certain fee regulation committee decisions. It also has civil court-like powers and can condone delay in filing appeals.
The repeal and savings clause (Rule 25) states that the earlier 2015 Rules are deemed to be repealed from the date of notification of the 2020 Rules. Presiding Officers or Chairmen appointed earlier are treated as appointed under the new Rules; and actions taken under the earlier Rules are saved and treated as if done under the 2020 Rules.
On this basis, the petitioners’ counsel argued that the District and State Appellate Authorities under the 2020 Rules were meant only for teachers on fixed salary basis appointed after 2006 or working in aided institutions. They contended that regular government teachers like the petitioners do not fall within the jurisdiction of these authorities. Therefore, according to them, the petitioners could directly approach the High Court under writ jurisdiction for their pay scale claim.
The Court carefully considered this submission. It rejected the narrow reading of the Rules. The Court held that a bare look at the definitions and the scope of the Rules shows that they cover all kinds of teachers, Headmasters, Principals, Vice-Principals, Adhyapaks and other teachers working in various schools, colleges and universities across Bihar.
The Court observed that the Rules are framed, among other sources, under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which applies to all institutions in Bihar. The wide definitions of Elementary School, Secondary School, Senior Secondary School and University take in all educational institutions in Bihar, whether private or government-controlled.
Therefore, the Court held that all employees working in such institutions are entitled to take their service disputes to the redressal mechanism provided under the 2020 Rules. The Court also emphasised that interpretation of such rules should be inclusive rather than exclusive, especially when the rule-making authority has not specifically excluded any particular institution from the jurisdiction of the District Appellate Authority.
The Court clarified that only persons who are not yet “borne in service” (that is, not appointed at all) are outside the jurisdiction of these authorities. Once a person is in service in the Education Department in any school or college of any kind, their service grievances can and should be taken first to the District Appellate Authority.
The Court listed various types of service disputes that can go before the District Appellate Authority. These include matters relating to transfer, seniority, pay scale, departmental enquiry, advertisement, selection and appointment, probation, engagement or re-employment, punishments with or without departmental proceedings, termination or removal, compulsory retirement, increment, transfer or deputation, leave, suspension, date of birth, allowances and reimbursements, seniority, promotion or reversion, departmental examinations, salary, pay fixation, quarter allotment and pension.
The Court underlined that these are largely factual disputes. Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court’s scope for deciding questions of fact is limited. The concerned appellate authorities under the 2020 Rules can summon records, assess evidence and give findings on facts more effectively. They are also located in districts, making access easier and quicker for teachers and staff.
Further, the Rules permit parties to be represented by advocates, ensuring that teachers and other employees can have proper legal assistance before these authorities.
The Court described the 2020 Rules as a “beneficial legislation” aimed at quick and judicious redressal of disputes of employees of the Education Department. The scheme is intended to resolve service disputes at the threshold, reduce litigation before the High Court and help improve functioning of the education system.
Having reached this conclusion, the Court held that all matters concerning teachers pending before the High Court, including the present writ petitions, should first be adjudicated on merits and facts by the relevant District Appellate Authority. If, after that, any grievance remains, the concerned person may approach the State Appellate Authority. Only thereafter, if necessary, can the High Court be moved.
The Court was informed during hearing that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic over the previous two years, the State Government had not taken steps to form District Appellate Authorities, and many districts did not have functional authorities.
In response, the Court issued directions. It disposed of these writ petitions and other similarly situated writ petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the District Appellate Authority for their claims, including the claim for Matric Trained Pay Scale.
The Court directed that the petitioners could obtain certified copies of their writ petitions and any counter affidavits filed by the State, and use them as part of their pleadings before the District Appellate Authority. The appellate authority would be entitled to call for records from the concerned schools, establishments or colleges, hear all parties and then pass a speaking order as early as possible.
The Court also directed that the State counsel should inform the Chief Secretary and the Secretary, Education Department, about this order. The Chief Secretary and the Secretary, Education Department, were directed to immediately take steps to make the District Appellate Authorities functional in all districts. Necessary staff and members were to be appointed as early as possible, and in any case not later than one month from the date of the judgment. Appropriate directions for their functioning were also to be issued.
With these directions, the Patna High Court disposed of the writ petitions without deciding the merits of the petitioners’ pay scale claims.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for all teachers and education employees in Bihar, whether working in government, aided or private institutions. It clarifies that service disputes must first go to the special appellate authorities created under the 2020 Rules.
For ordinary teachers, this means they now have a dedicated forum in their own district to challenge issues like wrong pay scale, delayed salary, transfer orders, suspension, promotion, termination, pension and other service matters.
Instead of immediately filing a writ petition in the Patna High Court, they are expected to first file a complaint or appeal before the District Appellate Authority, and then, if needed, before the State Appellate Authority. Only after exhausting this remedy should the High Court be approached.
The judgment also puts pressure on the State Government to operationalise these authorities quickly. By directing the Chief Secretary and the Education Department to make these bodies functional within one month, the Court aims to ensure that the promised dispute redressal system is actually available in practice.
In short, the decision channels teacher service disputes away from the High Court and into a specialised, accessible forum designed to handle factual questions and provide faster relief.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Do the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Dispute Redressal & Appeal) Rules, 2020 apply only to Niyojit or aided-institution teachers, or to all teachers and education staff in Bihar?
Answer: The Patna High Court held that the 2020 Rules apply to all kinds of teachers, Headmasters, Principals, Vice-Principals, Adhyapaks and non-teaching staff working in schools, colleges and universities across Bihar, except persons not yet in service. -
Issue: Can teachers directly approach the Patna High Court under Article 226 for service disputes like pay scale, or must they first use the remedies under the 2020 Rules?
Answer: The Court held that teachers must first approach the concerned District Appellate Authority, and then the State Appellate Authority, for their service grievances. The High Court should not deal with such matters at the initial stage when the specialised mechanism exists. -
Issue: What directions were given regarding non-functional District Appellate Authorities?
Answer: The Court directed the Chief Secretary and Secretary, Education Department, to take immediate steps to ensure that District Appellate Authorities start functioning in all districts, with necessary staff and members appointed within one month.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No previous judicial decisions are cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment. The Court’s reasoning is based on the language and scope of the 2020 Rules and constitutional provisions.
Case Details
Case Numbers:
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5489 of 2020
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6392 of 2020
Case Title:
CWJC No. 5489 of 2020: Suresh Ram v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
CWJC No. 6392 of 2020: Sunita Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Date of Judgment:
23-02-2022
Citation:
2022(2) PLJR 80
Advocates:
In CWJC No. 5489 of 2020: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate – for the petitioner; Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, AC to GP 20 – for the respondents.
In CWJC No. 6392 of 2020: Mr. Umesh Prasad – for the petitioner; Ms. Shilpa Sinha, AC to GA-XII – for the respondents.
Nature of the Case:
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking grant of Matric Trained Pay Scale and raising the question of availability and scope of alternative statutory remedies under the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Dispute Redressal & Appeal) Rules, 2020.
Link to the Judgment:
Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
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.
