Case Background
The matter arises from Civil Review No. 37 of 2022 in the Patna High Court, connected with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5489 of 2020.
The petitioner is a teacher by profession. His earlier writ petition was disposed of by the High Court in terms of a common judgment passed in two other writ petitions, titled Suresh Ram v. The State of Bihar and Sunita Kumari v. The State of Bihar and others.
The petitioner was not a party in those two writ petitions. However, the order in those cases affected his rights because his writ petition was decided in the same manner.
Feeling aggrieved by that judgment, and particularly by how the Court interpreted the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Disputes Redressal and Appeal) Rules, 2020, he chose to file this review petition.
He did not file a separate appeal but directly approached the same Court asking it to review and correct its earlier judgment.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The main grievance of the petitioner was about the scope of the 2020 Rules dealing with dispute redressal and appeals for teachers and employees of teaching institutions in Bihar.
The earlier judgment, which he wanted to be reviewed, had held that these 2020 Rules applied to all teachers, including those appointed on a regular basis under rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, particularly the 2011 Promotion Rules.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that this was an error. He tried to show that, in Bihar, school teachers fall into different categories, each governed by different appointment and promotion rules, and therefore their appeal forums must also be different.
According to him, there are:
(a) Teachers appointed by Panchayats, Nagar Parishads and Municipalities, working in schools managed by these local bodies.
(b) Teachers working in nationalised schools. These are schools earlier run by charitable societies or private organisations, later taken over by the government.
(c) Teachers appointed under rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, such as the Bihar Primary Appointment Rules, 1991 and later promotion rules of 1993, 2011 and 2018, who are regular government teachers in primary and middle schools.
For the third category, the petitioner argued that their promotions and grievances are governed by specific rules, and if they are aggrieved by non-promotion, they have a right of appeal to the Regional Deputy Director under the 2011 rules, and further avenues under the 2018 promotion rules.
He contended that before the 2020 Rules came into force, the 2015 Rules were in place and did not give regular teachers any right of appeal to the District or State Appellate Authority. According to him, the 2020 Rules should be understood in the same limited way.
He emphasized that teachers appointed by Panchayats, Zila Parishads and Municipal bodies were always treated separately. Their service grievances were originally meant to be decided by the District Appellate Authority, which, he argued, was created only for those teachers.
The petitioner’s counsel also gave a historical background. He submitted that since around 2003, the system of appointing regular teachers was being phased out and treated as a “dying cadre”. Their service matters, like transfer, posting and promotion, were handled by the District Establishment Committee headed by the District Education Officer.
By contrast, he pointed out, teachers appointed under Panchayat Raj Institutions or Municipal bodies are under the District Programme Officer, who looks after their grievances.
On this basis, he argued that the definition of “teacher” in the 2020 Rules is exclusive and does not include teachers directly appointed by the State Government. He drew attention to Rule 13(5) of the 2020 Rules, saying that it limits the right of appeal only to headmasters, teachers and non-teaching staff working in Panchayat Raj Institutions.
Other learned counsel were permitted to assist the Court in the interest of justice. One counsel submitted that the Court itself cannot create or extend an appellate forum to teachers appointed on a regular basis, if the legislature has not provided such a forum. He contended that regular teachers in government pay scales should approach the High Court directly through writ petitions for their grievances.
They also argued that for Panchayat teachers and Zila Parishad teachers, the District Education Officer is the disciplinary authority and the District Appellate Authority is the appellate authority under the 2020 Rules. However, for regular government teachers, the Regional Deputy Director is the disciplinary authority and the Director, Education is the appellate authority, so they should not be brought under the same appellate structure.
Another counsel questioned the Court’s earlier observation that rules should be interpreted in an inclusive and not conclusive manner. He claimed this was a legal error and that the rule-making authority had intended to keep some institutions outside the jurisdiction of the District Appellate Authority.
Yet another counsel referred to Rule 25 of the 2020 Rules, which deals with repeal and savings. He pointed out that the new rules took into account the earlier 2015 Rules and the Bihar Aided Teaching Institution Authority Rules, 2015. On that basis, he argued that the new rules should also be read as limited only to those who were governed by the repealed rules.
After hearing all arguments, the Court first examined whether the review petition was maintainable at all, since the petitioner had not been a party in the earlier writ petitions.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Janam Singh v. The State of U.P., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1722. It quoted the Supreme Court’s view that even if a person is not made a party in a writ petition, but is affected by the judgment, he or she can still challenge that judgment by filing a review petition before the High Court or a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
Relying on this, the Patna High Court held that the petitioner did have the right to file a review petition. Therefore, the review petition was held to be entertainable and was formally taken up on merits.
The Court then turned to the limits of its power in review. It clearly stated that review jurisdiction is very narrow.
A review can only be allowed if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, a mistake of law, a factual error, or if a relevant existing judgment was not considered, or a cited judgment had already been set aside in appeal. The Court cannot re-examine issues already decided, nor can it re-appreciate facts or law as in an appeal.
With this strict standard in mind, the Court examined the petitioner’s submissions on the 2020 Rules.
The Court noted that the petitioners had not pointed out any specific law or rule that explicitly excluded or restrained regularly appointed teachers from approaching the District Appellate Authority or State Appellate Authority for service grievances.
The Court held that although there may be different classes of teachers with different appointment procedures and pay scales, their grievance redressal forum does not have to be different. What matters is the definition of “teachers” in the 2020 Rules.
The Court reiterated what it had already held in the earlier judgment under review: the definition of “teachers” in the 2020 Rules extends to all teachers.
It observed that the definition of secondary and senior secondary schools is not confined to nationalised or project schools but includes schools run by the government as well. Therefore, all teachers teaching in such schools would be covered by the Disputes Redressal Rules, 2020.
The Court specifically noted that the definition of teachers refers to “urban body institutions in government/nationalized primary and middle schools, secondary schools, senior secondary schools” which are notified by the Government of Bihar from time to time. This, according to the Court, brings within the fold all teachers working in government or nationalised schools in cities as well as in Panchayat Raj Institutions. No distinction is made.
The Court contrasted the 2020 Rules with the earlier 2015 Rules. While the 2015 Rules were limited mainly to teachers appointed in Panchayat Raj Institutions, Zila Parishads or Municipal bodies, the 2020 Rules widened the definition. This deliberate change, in the Court’s view, proved that the legislature intended to extend the jurisdiction to more categories, including regular government teachers.
The Court also referred to Rule 15(3) of the 2020 Rules. This provision gives the Appellate Authority the power to impose punishment or to take necessary action against delinquent employees under the Bihar Service Code, Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and other relevant provisions.
Because it refers broadly to all these service codes and statutes, the Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the District and State Appellate Authorities under the 2020 Rules expands to all such rules. This leaves no doubt that these authorities can exercise jurisdiction over grievances of all teachers and even non-government employees of all schools and aided institutions.
Having reached this conclusion, the Court found no error of law or fact in its earlier judgment. It refused to re-interpret the 2020 Rules narrowly as requested by the petitioner.
Ultimately, the Court held that there was no ground for review. The review petition was therefore dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for all categories of school teachers and non-teaching staff in Bihar, whether working in government schools, nationalised schools, Panchayat-run schools, Zila Parishad schools, Municipal schools or aided institutions.
The Patna High Court has confirmed that the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Disputes Redressal and Appeal) Rules, 2020, apply broadly. This means teachers cannot insist that they have no alternate remedy and go straight to the High Court in every service dispute.
Instead, they now have to use the District Appellate Authority and State Appellate Authority for grievances related to service, including disciplinary matters and possibly promotion disputes, unless a specific exclusion is shown.
The ruling also clarifies that mere differences in pay scale, appointment method or controlling authority do not automatically create different grievance forums, unless the rules clearly say so. This brings some uniformity and certainty to service dispute resolution for teaching staff in Bihar.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a teacher, whose writ petition was decided on the basis of another judgment in which he was not a party, file a review petition against that judgment?
Answer: Yes. Relying on Ram Janam Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1722), the Court held that an affected person, though not a party, can challenge such a judgment through review. - Issue: Did the earlier judgment wrongly extend the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Disputes Redressal and Appeal) Rules, 2020 to regular government teachers appointed under Article 309 rules, thereby warranting review?
Answer: No. The Court held that the definition of “teachers” and the scheme of the 2020 Rules cover all teachers in government, nationalised, Panchayat and Municipal schools, and there is no rule excluding regular teachers from the jurisdiction of the District and State Appellate Authorities. - Issue: Can the Court re-appreciate facts and law in review proceedings merely because another interpretation of the rules is possible?
Answer: No. The Court reiterated that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting apparent errors of law or fact, or considering overlooked judgments, and cannot be used as an appeal for re-examination of decided issues.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Ram Janam Singh v. The State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1722 (on the right of non-parties affected by a judgment to seek review or appeal).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Review No. 37 of 2022 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5489 of 2020
Case Title: Rajiw Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022(2) PLJR 68
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Date of Judgment: 29-03-2022
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Advocate; Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, Advocate; Mr. Jitendra Acharya, Advocate; Mr. Anand Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Advocates for the Opposite Parties (State): Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, AAG-10; Mr. Priyadarshi Matin Sharan, AC to AAG-10
Nature of the Case: Civil review petition arising out of a writ petition relating to service disputes of teachers and applicability of the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Disputes Redressal and Appeal) Rules, 2020
Link to the Judgment: Click here to access the full judgment on the 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.
