Patna High Court
Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2511 of 2025
======================================================
1. Prakash Kumar S/o Arun Kumar Arun, R/o Village and P.O.- Bangaown,
Ward No.- 12, P.S.- Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi, at present working as
Panchayat Teacher at Government Primary School, Kodariya, Block-
Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
2. Ram Babu Thakur, S/o Sri Rajendra Thakur, R/o Village - Talkhapur, Ward
No.- 14, P.O.- Dumra, P.S. - Dumra, District- Sitamarhi, at present working
as Block Teacher at Government Rajkiya Middle School, Pandhpakar,
Bathnaha, Block- Bathnaha, District - Sitamarhi.
3. Ram Babu Singh, S/o Shivdev Singh, R/o Village P.O.and P.S.- Bathnaha,
Ward No.- 07, District - Sitamarhi, at present working as Panchayat Teacher
at Government Primary School, Ramnagar, Block - Bathnaha, District
Sitamarhi.
4. Nirmala Kumari, W/o Vijay Kumar, R/o Village - Singhibahni, Ward No.-
12, P.S. Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi, at present working as Block Teacher
at Government Middle School, Narkatiya - 1, Block - Sonbarsa, District -
Sitamarhi.
5. Rajesh Ranjan, S/o Hari Narayan Ray, R/o Village - Keshopur, P.O. -
Pokharbhira, Ward No.- 01, P.S.- Pupri, District - Sitamarhi, at present work-
ing as Panchayat Teacher at Government Primary School, Gangapatti
Pokharbhira, Block- Pupri, District- Sitamarhi.
6. Sunil Kumar Chaudhari, S/o Vindeshwar Chaudhari, R/o Village- Jaganpatti,
P.O. - Digghi, Ward No.- 08, P.S.- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi, at present
working as Panchayat Teacher at Government Primary School, Jaganpatti,
Block- Bathnaha, District - Sitamarhi.
7. Sunil Paswan, S/o Ram Chandra Paswan, R/o Village and P.O.- Dumra,
Ward No.- 35, P.S.-Dumra, District- Sitamarhi, at present working as Pan-
chayat Teacher at Government Primary School, Anharman Tola, Ward No.-
7, Block- Dumra, District - Sitamarhi.
8. Prem Chand Kumar, S/o Sri Khelawan Sahni, R/o Village- Hanuman Nagar,
P.O. - Sahiyara, P.S.- Sahiyara, District - Sitamarhi, at present working as
Panchayat Teacher at Government Rajkiya Primary School Sahiyara Bath-
naha, Block- Bathnaha, District Sitamarhi.
9. Vijay Kumar, S/o Chandeshwar Ray, R/o Village - Dostpur, Ward No.- 12,
P.O.- Bariyarpur, P.S.- Bathnaha, District - Sitamarhi, at present working as
Panchayat Teacher at Government Rajkiya Primary School, Pandaul, Block-
Bathnaha, Block - Bathnaha, District - Sitamarhi.
10. Afshan Firoz, D/o Firoj Ahmad, W/o Ehtesham Arif, R/o Village- Bargach-
hiya, P.O.- Awapur, P.S.- Pupri, District- Sitamarhi, at present working as
Panchayat Teacher at Government Primary School, Bargachhia Awapur BR
Toli, Pupri, Block - Pupri, District Sitamarhi.
11. Vijay Sahni, S/o Ram Pragash Sahni, R/o Village- Dhumha Tola, Ward No.-
01, P.O.- Yogwana, P.S.- Sahiyara, District - Sitamarhi, at present working as
Block Teacher at Government Middle School Madhubani Got, Bathnaha,
Block - Bathnaha, District Sitamarhi.
12. Gajendra Ram, S/o Sukdev Ram, R/o- Village- Pachgachhiya, P.O.- Sirauli,
P.S.- Bathanaha, District - Sitamarhi, at present working as Block Teacher at
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
Government Rajkiya Primary School Bairha, Bathnaha, Block- Bathnaha,
District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi, District Sitamarhi.
4. The District Programme Officer, Establishment (Education), Sitamarhi,
District - Sitamarhi.
5. The Block Teacher Employment/Appointment Committee, Runnisaidpur,
Block - Runnisaidpur, District - Sitamarhi, through its Member Secretary -
Cum - Block Development Officer, Runnisaidpur, District - Sitamarhi.
6. The Block Teacher Employment/Appointment Committee, Bathnaha, Block
Bathnaha, District Sitamarhi, through its Member Secretary - Cum - Block
Development Officer, Bathnaha, District - Sitamarhi.
7. The Block Teacher Employment/Appointment Committee, Sonbarsa, Block
- Sonbarsa, District - Sitamarhi, through its Member Secretary - Cum -
Block Development Officer, Sonbarsa, District - Sitamarhi.
8. The Chairman, Block Teacher Employment/Appointment Committee Cum
Block Pramukh (Panchayat Samiti), Runnisaidpur, Block - Runnisaidpur,
District - Sitamarhi.
9. The Chairman, Block Teacher Employment/Appointment Committee Cum
Block Pramukh (Panchayat Samiti), Bathnaha, Block - Bathnaha, District -
Sitamarhi.
10. The Chairman, Block Teacher Employment/Appointment Committee Cum
Block Pramukh (Panchayat Samiti), Sonbarsa, Block - Sonbarsa, District -
Sitamarhi.
11. The Member Secretary, Block Teacher Employment/Appointment Commit-
tee -Cum- Block Development Officer, Runnisaidpur, Block- Runnisaidpur,
District - Sitamarhi.
12. The Member Secretary, Block Teacher Employment/Appointment Commit-
tee Cum Block Development Officer, Bathnaha, Block- Bathnaha, District -
Sitamarhi.
13. The Member Secretary, Block Employment/Appointment Committee
Teacher -Cum- Block Development Officer, Sonbarsa, Block - Sonbarsa,
District- Sitamarhi.
14. The Block Education Officer, Runnisaidpur, Block- Runnisaidpur, District -
Sitamarhi
15. The Block Education Officer, Bathnaha, Block Bathnaha, District -
Sitamarhi.
16. The Block Education Officer, Sonbarsa, Block - Sonbarsa, District-
Sitamarhi.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
17. The Block Education Officer, Pupri, Block - Pupri, District- Sitamarhi.
18. The Block Education Officer, Dumra, Block Dumra, District- Sitamarhi.
19. The Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee -Cum-
Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Bathnaha West, Block Bathnaha, District -
Sitamarhi.
20. The Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee -Cum-
Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Baura Bajitpur, Block Pupri, District -
Sitamarhi.
21. The Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee -Cum-
Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj- Digghi, Block- Bathnaha, District -
Sitamarhi.
22. The Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee -Cum-
Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj- Bhasar Machhuha North, Block- Dumra,
District Sitamarhi.
23. The Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee -Cum-
Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj- Sahiyara, Block - Bathnaha, District -
Sitamarhi.
24. The Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee -Cum-
Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj- Pandaul @ Panthpak, Block- Bathnaha,
District- Sitamarhi.
25. The Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee -Cum-
Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj- Gangti, Block - Pupri, District - Sitamarhi.
26. The Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee -Cum-
Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj- Bairha Barahi, Block - Bathnaha, District -
Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Arinjay Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : SC-18.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 28-08-2025
Heard Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, learned counsel
along with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh and Mr. Arinjay Kumar,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and
learned SC-18 for the State.
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
writ petition have sought, interalia, following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
"For issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to
the respondent authorities to consider and grant time bound
promotion to the petitioners upon completion of twelve (12)
years satisfactory service on the post of Basic Grade
Trained Block / Panchayat Teacher to the next pay scale of
Graduate Grade Trained Teacher since the due date of
promotion with all consequential service benefits including
arrear of differences of salary, according to the provisions
contained under the Rule 16(ii) of the Bihar Panchayat
Elementary School Service (Appointment, Promotion,
Transfer, Disciplinary Proceeding and Service Condition)
Rules, 2020.
(ii) Further, for any other order / order (s) as
your Lordships may found fit and proper under given facts
and circumstances of the case."
3. Altogether twelve writ petitioners have come
before this Court claiming that they were appointed between the
year 2003 to 2007. The petitioners no.3, 8 and 11 were engaged
as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003, while petitioners
no. 4, 6, 9 and 12 were also engaged as Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra in the year 2005 by the Sukh-Suvidha
Committee/Panchayat Employment Committee. The petitioners
no. 1, 2, 5, 7 and 10 were appointed as Panchayat Teachers in
the year 2007 after coming into force of Bihar Panchayat
Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions)
Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 2006'). The
particulars relating to each petitioners contained in Chart is
Annexure P/1 to the writ petition. Petitioners have claimed that
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
the petitioners had obtained the requisite qualification between
the year 2011 to 2012 and have sought to be promoted or
entitled for financial up-gradation after having completed
kalavadhi of 12 years of their continuous service as Primary
teachers (Class I - V) from their effective dates of appointment.
ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners no. 1 to 5, 7, 8 and 10
were appointed after coming into force of Rules, 2006, while
petitioners no. 4, 6, 9 and 12 were appointed during the period
2003 to 2005 as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. After coming into
force of Rules, 2006, they were absorbed w.e.f. 01.07.2006 and
their status changed from Panchayat Shiksha Mitra to Primary
Teacher or Prakhand Teacher as per their absorption by the
respective employment Unit. Since the petitioners were
absorbed as Panchayat teachers (Class I-V) or were appointed
after coming into force of Rules, 2006 as Panchayat Teacher
having Intermediate degree, they appeared in Evaluation /
Efficiency (Dakshta) Test as per the 2009 amendment brought in
Rules, 2006. They were also sent for training conducted by State
Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Bihar
Patna. Some of the petitioners have also qualified TET.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
Petitioners fulfill the mandate of RTE Act, 2009 in respect of
their qualification as teachers of Class I-V.
5. Learned counsel informs that Rules, 2006 was
repealed by the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers
(Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Rules 2012'). Rule 15 (f) of Rules, 2012
prescribes for pay of Graduate Trained after 12 years of
satisfactory service of Prakhand Teachers. They filed several
representations before the different respondent authorities
requesting them for preparation of seniority list for giving
promotion from the effective dates of eligibility of Niyojit
Teachers. Learned counsel further submitted that Rules, 2012
was repealed by theBihar Panchayat Elementary School Service
(Appointment, Promotion, Transfer, Disciplinary Proceedings
and Service Conditions) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as
'Rules, 2020). Rule 16(ii) of the Rules, 2020 also deals with
granting time bound promotion to the basic grade panchayat /
Block Teachers after completing 12 years of satisfactory service
in next pay scale of Graduate Trained teachers. Learned counsel
asserted that it is well settled principle of law by the Apex Court
that right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right
and denial to same is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
Constitution. Learned counsel takes support of an Order /
Judgment dated 09.12.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6391 of
2021 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and others) passed
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in which this Court has
directed the concerned authority to complete the entire process
of promotion within 90 days from the date of communication of
the order. Learned counsel submitted that refusing promotion
has deprived the petitioners from the financial upgradation. The
petitioners require fair consideration in this regard.
6. Per contra, Learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents submitted that the matter relating to
promotion was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Pramod Kumar Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.
(C.W.J.C. No. 1942 of 2024) and he has heavily relied on the
argument advanced by the learned Advocate General having
been taken note of in Paragraph Nos. 19, 20 and 51, which are
reproduced hereinafter:
"19. The learned Advocate General argues that
the teachers have been given five options to migrate to the
newcadre of Exclusive Teachers. The existing cadres will be of
Niyojit Teachers, Exclusive Teachers and the State School
Teachers who would all have promotional avenues, separately.
But there can be no discrimination alleged because the
emoluments are the same and there is scope for career
progression and different rules apply for these different cadres
whose sources are different. It is urged that Mohinder Singh Gill
(supra) has no application since the counter affidavit does not
restrict the rule in any manner. The counter affidavit only
indicates the State's understanding that the proviso to Rule 4 only
speaks of recommendations which ultimately has to be considered
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
by the State. The recommendations are also insofar as facilities to
be provided to the teachers and their adjustment in various
districts and so on and so forth, which cannot at any rate lead to
termination.
20. To a specific query by us, whether there is any
ratio employed for the purpose of career progression, the learned
Advocate General concedes that there is none and he would
advise the State Government to bring in such a ratio, equitably,
enabling promotions from all the three cadres. It is also conceded
that looking at the repeal & saving in the Exclusive Teachers
Rules-2023, it may not be correct, for reason of it having
impinged into the occupied field of the Local Bodies Rules-2020.
Learned Advocate General would urge that theGovernment's duty
is to provide the children with quality education, especially to
those coming from the deprived communities with no means for
having a standard education in private schools. There are two
crores of children from the lower strata studying in the
government schools of Bihar and the attempt of the State is to
only ensure that they are given quality education in the primary
schools in Bihar. The grounds raised by the petitioners are totally
out of sync with the ground realities and has no legal backing. It
is reiterated that insofar as the ratio for promotion and providing
proper appellate authority, the State would immediately take
action and such lacunae as argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, is no reason to strike down an otherwise valid
legislation.
51. The arguments raised before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Struggle Committee (supra), according to us
does not restrict the State from changing its policies, which is
also as a trial-and-error measure. As was noticed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court substantial progress was achieved in the
numerical strength of teachers and enrollment of students.
However, as argued by the learned Advocate General, the State is
not to do mere lip service to the obligations under the RTE Act
and there is an urgent need to achieve standards of education
which has an imminent and definite correlation with the quality
of teachers. Unless the teaching standards are upgraded the
quality of education would not rise and the spirit and tenor of the
goals intended by the RTE Act, would not be realized. Mere
enhancement of numerical strength would not serve the purpose
or achieve the goal; which has resulted in the present change in
policy and there is no promise, the State can be held down to, that
there would be no revival of the class of government teachers. In
fact, there is a complete volte-face by the introduction of the
Rules of 2023, both the Exclusive Teachers Rules and the State
School Service Rules. The State now intends to create a class of
teachers with both training qualification and tested skills, as
would be revealed in the competency test/written examination,
which will be respectively carried out for conversion of Niyojit
Teachers to Exclusive Teachers and fresh recruitment of State
School Teachers."
7. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on
paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the argument advanced on behalf of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
the State in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar &
Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 6391 of 2021), which are reproduced
hereinafter:
"7. The Advocate on behalf of the State-
Respondents refers to paragraph no. 7 of the supplementary
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 wherein
it is stated that in view of the judgment passed in SLP No. 30621
of 2011 (Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors.)
reported in (2018) 10 SCC 396 and other analogous cases and
order dated 01.04.2019, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14907 of 2018
(Yogeshwar Pandey & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and
other analogous cases, the General Administration Department
issued a Notification No. 5066, dated 11.04.2019 to the effect that
all departments including the regional offices, shall postpone
their meeting of the departmental promotion committee as well as
promotions given to the posts of State Government or services
until further orders.
8. In the same paragraph, it is recorded that the
said embargo was relaxed vide a subsequent Memo No. 19300,
dated 13th October, 2023. In view of relaxation of previous order
dated 11th of April, 2019, the State Government cannot have any
objection against granting promotion to the petitioner and
similarly situated teachers."
8. Adopting the above argument of the learned
Advocate General, learned counsel submitted that as the Rules
have been framed, no guidelines is required to be issued under
Rules, 2020 in view of separate cadre of head teachers in respect
of all the Graduate Trained teachers. The present writ petitioners
have not given their specific information regarding their service
particulars, the writ petition being devoid of merits are fit to be
dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
9. Heard the parties.
10. The writ petition has been filed by the two
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
group of teachers, one group constituting Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra who were absorbed w.e.f. 01.07.2006 and the other group
forming teachers who were directly appointed after coming into
force of Rules, 2006. The Panchayat Shiksha Mitra after being
absorbed either as Panchayat Teacher (Class 1 to 5) were being
governed by the Rules, 2006 till it was in force.
11. The State Government vide Resolution No.
1079 dated 20.06.2002 provided for engagement of Shiksha
Mitra for 11 months contract. The scheme came to be repealed
by Rules, 2006.
12. The Rules, 2006 was amended in the year 2008.
The amendment made mandatory for passing of Teacher
Evaluation/Efficiency Test (Dakshta) Examination which was
being conducted after every three years. Petitioners no. 1, 2, 5, 7
and 10 who were appointed after coming into force of Rules,
2006 who were untrained were also required to appear in
Teacher Evaluation/Efficiency Test (Dakshta) after coming into
force of Central Act, the Right to Education Act, 2009
(hereinafter referred to as "RTE Act, 2009". The State
government also made teachers eligibility test mandatory as per
the mandate of RTE Act, 2009. The State government in
conformity with the Central Act established the State Council
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
For Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Bihar and the
petitioners have claimed that they qualified STET and thereafter
they were also sent for in service teachers training course of
diploma in primary education (DPE) from Indira Gandhi
National Open University (IGNOU). The year of completion has
already been given in the detailed chart. It is the case of the
petitioners that they had also completed six months bridge
course/ enrichment programme of DPE.
13. The Rules, 2006 was repealed by Rules, 2012
which deals with the elementary schools at different level of
local bodies. At the panchayat school (Class 1 to 5) and
Prakhand School (Classes 6 to 8), the required qualification for
panchayat level teacher and Prakhand teachers are same as that
has been provided by the NCTE. The panchayat teachers are
required to be intermediate / Senior Secondary having at least
50% marks and two years diploma in Elementary Education (by
whatever name known) or Senior Secondary with at least 45%
marks and two years diploma in elementary education (by
whatever name known) in accordance with NCTE Regulation or
Senior Secondary with at least 50% marks and four years
bachelor of elementary education (B.El.Ed.) and must be passed
in Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines
framed by the NCTE for the said purpose. Similarly, minimum
qualification as per NCTE for Classes 6 to 8 has been provided
that the teachers should be BA/B.Sc. and two years diploma in
elementary education (whatever name known) or BA/B.Sc. with
at least 50% and one year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) and
also required passing of Teachers Eligibility Test.
14. The Rule 4 of the Rules, 2012 provides three
grades of teachers as follow:-
"Grades of Panchayat Elementary Teachers -
ThePanchayat elementary teachers will be of the following three
grades:-
(i) Basic grade
(ii) Graduate grade/Graduate teachers of middle
schools
(iii) Headmaster grade/Headmaster of the middle
school
(In the case of upgradation of a primary school into a
middle school, the teachers of primary school will become the
teachers of the respective grades of the middle school.)
15. The Rule 15 of the Rules, 2012 deals with the
service condition of teachers. Rule 15(f)(i) of the Rules, 2012
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
specifically deals with the provisions of promotion to the
Panchayat and Block Teachers. The Rule 15 (f) mandates that
the promotion will be given to the employed trained
panchayat/prakhand teacher of basic grade from the date of
joining and employed untrained teacher from the date of getting
trained fixed pay in the next fixed pay (prescribed for graduate
trained teachers) after 12 (twelve) years of satisfactory service at
prakhand level. The Rule 15(cha), inter alia, is reproduced as
under:
"¼ p½ izksUufr& ¼i½ izf'k{k.k izkIr csfld xzsM ds
fu;ksftr uxj f'k{kdksa dks ;ksxnku dh frfFk rFkk vizf'kf{kr :i ls
fu;ksftr uxj f'k{kdksa dks izf'kf{kr osrueku izkfIr dh frfFk ds vk/kkj
ij rS;kj ojh;rk lwph ls 12 o"kksZa dh larks"ktud lsok ds ckn
vxys fu;r osru ¼ izf'kf{kr Lukrd f'k{kdksa ds fy, fofgr½ esa
izksUufr nh tk;sxhA izksUufr ds QyLo:i bl xzsM ds f'k{kd
vius gh xzsM esa jgsaxsA
¼ii½ Lukrd f'k{kdksa ds 50 % inksa ij csfld xzsM esa 8
¼vkB½ o"kksaZ dh larks"ktud lsok iwjh djus okys Lukrd ;ksX;rk/kkjh
uxj f'k{kdksa dh izksUufr esa lh/kk fu;kstu fd;k tk ldsxkA
¼iii½ izf'kf{kr Lukrd f'k{kdksa esa ls ojh;rk ,oa Lukrd
xzsM esa 5 ¼ikWap½ o"kkssZa dh U;wure lsok ds vk/kkj ij rS;kj ojh;rk lwph
ls e/; fo|ky; ds fu;r osru ds iz/kkuk/;kid ds in ij izksUufr nh
tk;sxhA
¼iv½ izksUufr dh dkjZokbZ fu;kstu lfefr ds }kjk dh
tk;sxhA Lukrd xzsM esa izksUufr ds QyLo:i inLFkkiu dh dkjZokbZ Hkh
fu;kstu lfefr ds }kjk dh tk;sxhA
¼v½ izksUufr ds QyLo:i Lukrd f'k{kd ds fy,
fu/kkZfjr fu;r osru esa iwoZ esa izkIr dqy fu;r osru esa ,d osruo`f)
tksM+dj osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tk;sxkA
16. Rule 15 (cha) of 2012 Rules prescribes that 50
percent post of Graduate Teacher shall be filled up from the
eligible basic grade Teachers and 50 per cent shall be filled up
by direct recruitment. After framing 2012 Niyamawali, Teachers
were being recruited by way of direct recruitment on the post of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
Graduate Grade Teachers since 2013. However, the vacancies
with regard to 50 percent quota of promotion were never filled
up. Before coming into force of Rule, 2020, the State failed to
give effect to Rule 15 (cha) of Rules, 2012, which related to
promotion as per the terms and conditions contained therein.
17. Rule 5 of Rules, 2012 further makes distinction
between Classes I to V in respect of those teachers, who were
appointed on or after the 3rd September, 2001 i.e. the date on
which NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualification for
Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 as
amended from time to time, came into force. Possessing B.Ed.
qualification or a teacher possessing B.Ed. (Special Education)
qualification, shall undergo an NCTE recognized six months
special programme of elementary education. The distinction is
only in respect of those teachers, who were having B.Ed. degree
and were appointed on the basis of minimum qualification of
Intermediate to teach Classes I to V and the qualification as
prescribed in Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule 5 of Rules, 2012 in respect
of those teachers of Classes VI to VIII qualification as
prescribed by the NCTE remained the same.
18. Rule 7 relates to employment of Graduate Teachers
in Middle School on Subject-wise and in respect of candidates
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
having the prescribed qualification in accordance with Rule 5
will be employed as (i) Graduate Maths and Science Teacher,
(ii) Graduate Senior Science Teacher and (iii) Graduate
Language Teacher up to eight years from the date of notification
of Rules, 2012 . All the post of Graduate Teachers will be filled
up from direct Niyojan, after that, 50 percent posts will be filled
up directly and rest 50 percent will be filled up from promotion
of the qualified "Niyojit Teachers" of Basic Grade. Rule 7 also
makes clear distinction about the qualification, which is
required for the teachers of Classes VI to VIII, who were to be
appointed w.e.f. 03.04.2012, the date of coming into force of
Rules, 2012. Rule 7 also in nowhere, makes any distinction with
the teachers, who were already having requisite qualification as
prescribed under Rule 5 of Rules, 2012. The petitioners have
claimed that they had all the educational qualification required
as per the provisions of RTE Act, 2009 as stated above and they
had also successfully passed the Patrata Priksha. The Human
Resources Department, Government of Bihar also gave
certificate to them after completion of in service training.
19. The Rule, 2020 came into effect from 25.08.2020
and as per Rule all the past action taken has been saved. Rule 16
of Rules, 2020 provides for promotion and the same is
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
reproduced hereinafter:
"16. Promotion.-(i) Merit list shall be prepared
for promotion in the graduate grade of
Panchayat Elementary Teacher and on the post
of Head Master. For this the Committee
constituted for appointment at the level of
Panchayat Samiti shall be competent authority.
The Administrative Department will issue
detailed guide line with respect to promotion,
separatey.
(ii) Promotion on the next pay scale (Graduate
grade) may be granted on the basis of minimum
12 years of continuous satisfactory service from
the date of joining on the post of teacher in the
basic grade of elementary panchayat teacher
cadre or from the date of acquiring of the
required training qualification, whichever is
later. For this, passing of Assessment (Efficiency
Test)/Teacher Eligibility Test shall be essential.
The grade of the teacher after promotion will
remain as before."
20. Rule 14 deals with the Service Conditions and Rule
16 of the Rules, 2020 specifically prescribes that (i) Merit list
shall be prepared for promotion in the graduate grade of
Panchayat elementary teacher and on post of Headmaster. For
this the committee constituted for appointment at the level of
Panchayat Samiti shall be competent authority. The
administrative department will issue detailed guidelines with
respect to promotion separately and (ii) promotion on next pay
scale (graduate grade) may be granted on the basis of minimum
12 years of continuous satisfactory service from the date of
joining on the post of teacher in basic grade of elementary
panchayat teacher cadre or from the date of acquiring of the
required training qualification, whichever is later. For this,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
passing of Assessment (Efficiency test) / Teachers Eligibility
Test shall be essential.
21. Thus it appears that the only promotional
avenue available to the Graduate Grade Teachers is on the post
of Headmaster. Rule 15 (cha) of Rules, 2012 and Rule 16 of
Rules, 2020 provides for time bound promotion on completion
of service of twelve years.
22. RTE Act, 2009 is a Central Act enacted with the
avowed objective to guarantee quality education to the child
aged between 6-14 years. The minimum qualification stipulated
under Section 23 (1) and relaxation in terms of Section 23 (2)
and gives freedom to the State Government under Section 23 (3)
to prescribe the salary and the allowances payable, and the
terms and conditions of service of the teachers. In exercise of
said power, the service condition has been provided under Rule
15 of Rules, 2012 and Rule 14 of Rules, 2020, which is based
on the qualification of the teachers as provided in the NCTE
notifications. I find that there is no persuasive reason for not
promoting the petitioners or granting them financial
upgradation. The action can be treated discriminatory treatment
to equals in the matter of payment of salary, in such a situation,
the Court can exercise its power of judicial review on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
touchstone of Article 14.
23. The Resolution No. 1530 dated 11.8.2015
provides for Grade Pay (a) Grade Pay of Rs. 2000 is admissible
to Prathmik Shikshak (Prashikshit) i.e. a trained teacher in basic
grade teaching in Prathamik Vidyalaya and (b) Grade Pay of Rs.
2400 is admissible to two categories of teachers being (i)
Prathmik Shikshak (Snatak Grade Prashikshit) and (ii)
Madyamik Shikshak (Prashikshit) i.e. trained teachers who are
in graduate grade and teaching in Prathmik Vidyalaya or
Primary Classes (i.e. for schools upto Class V). Thus those
teachers having educational qualification of graduate and
technical qualification of teachers training, then such trained
graduate teachers are entitled for Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 and not
of Rs. 2000 which is admissible to a teacher teaching only in
Prathmik Vidyalaya which requires minimum educational
qualification of Intermediate with technical qualification of
teachers training (D.El.Ed) and became entitled for promotion /
financial upgradation upon completion of 12 years.
24. The Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C.
No. 1942 of 2024 (Pramod Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors.) while considering the provisions of the Bihar State School
Teacher (Appointment, Transfer, Disciplinary Proceedings &
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
Service Conditions) Rules, 2023, has taken into consideration
the status of Niyojit teachers appointed before the said Rules in
Paragraphs 25, 33, 36 and 46 and observed as under:
"25. With the advent of the RTE Act and also the
exemption obtained under Section 23 of the RTE Act, the State
had devised the Bihar Elementary Teachers Eligibility Test, 2011,
for selecting teachers in the elementary schools from Class-I to
VIII. In accordance with the change brought about by the RTE
Act, again the Elementary Teachers Rules-2012 was brought out
wherein all rules, orders and instructions regarding employment
of teachers in elementary schools of rural areas were repealed.
The Elementary Teachers Rules-2012 was also brought out under
the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. Later to that, by
notification dated 11.08.2015, the trained and the untrained
Niyojit Primary, Secondary, Higher Secondary Teachers and
Librarians were given a pay scale and due fixation as against the
consolidated pay applicable to them. In the year 2020 again
three rules were brought in; the Bihar Panchayat Elementary
School Service (Appointment, Transfer, Disciplinary Proceedings
and Service Conditions) Rules, 2020; Bihar Municipal
Elementary School Service (Appointment, Promotion, Transfer,
Disciplinary Proceedings and Service Condition) Rules, 2020
and the Bihar District Board Secondary and Senior Secondary
School Service (Appointment, Promotion, Transfer, Disciplinary
Proceedings and Service Condition) Rules, 2020, (collectively
called the Local Bodies Teacher Rules- 2020) again under the
Constitution of India and the Panchayat Raj Act for appointment,
promotion, transfer, disciplinary proceedings and service
conditions of the Niyojit Teachers; which repealed the rules of
2012. The definition of teacher as per the Elementary School
Service Rules-2020 included Panchayat Elementary Teacher of
basic grade (Class-I to V) and Panchayat Elementary Teacher of
graduate grade (Class-VI to VIII). The Primary Teacher Rules-
2012 as amended in 2014 and 2015 was repealed. These Rules of
2020 have not been repealed under the Exclusive Teachers Rules-
2023. Pertinently these Rules were not repealed even under the
State School Teacher Rules-2023; which only provided that no
new appointments would be made under the earlier Rules which
are to be made exclusively under the State School Teacher Rules-
2023.
33. As we noticed in the narration of the history of
appointment & continuance of teachers over the years; earlier
there were two set of teachers one government teachers and the
other contract teachers; Shiksha Mitras who along with the new
appointments made after 2006, were given better benefits than
before, and termed the Niyojit Teachers. Both of them where a
class apart as has been found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Struggle Committee (supra); not possible of being equated for
the purpose of pay parity and service conditions, merely on the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The government teachers
at that point, were also considered to be a vanishing cadre; the
financial stringency of the State Government having motivated
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
them into contractual appointments and then giving them the
fixation, in a scale of pay, at a lower standard than that
applicable to the government teachers. The experiment was tried
out, but failed; as we see from the shifting policy of the
Government. The Government has now reviewed the policy and it
has been decided to have a cadre of qualified trained teachers
appointed, also on the basis of their skills tested at a written
examination, as is the intention of the State School Teachers
Rules-2023. Here we have to reiterate that the said rule has not
been challenged in the present batch of writ petitions. There was
a challenge to the same in which an interim order was declined
and the interim order survived scrutiny of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in a Special Leave Petition filed by the affected parties.
36. We observe that there were two different cadres
one of government teachers and the other of Niyojit Teachers;
which in the year 2010, despite the intention to treat the
government teachers as a vanishing creed; by reason of the one-
time special recruitment, the district cadre stood enhanced by
more than 32000 appointees. As of now another cadre is created
as Exclusive Teachers from the Niyojit Teachers who qualified in
a test conducted by the State. Those who do not qualify would be
retained as Niyojit Teachers, when the recruitment as per the
State School Teachers Rules-2023 and the posting in the new
cadre of Exclusive Teachers Rules-2023 are completed. Then,
there would exist four separate cadres, the State School Teachers,
the Exclusive Teachers, the Niyojit Teachers and the earlier
government teachers within whose cadre would also be the
teachers under the one-time special recruitment. The Niyojit, the
Exclusive and the earlier government teachers, all are at present,
a vanishing cadre and what is sought by the new rules is to bring
in a structured State School Teachers Cadre in the elementary
schools across the State. The field occupied by the different rules
are that of the existing Niyojit Teachers and of the separate
cadres; the State School Teachers and the Exclusive Teachers,
now created. The State School Teachers would be under the State
School Teachers Rules-2023, the government teachers, as they
were regulated from the inception. The Niyojit Teachers who
remain as such would be continued under the Local Bodies
Teachers Rules-2020. The Exclusive Teachers Rules-2023 is
applicable only to those Niyojit Teachers who opt, sit for and
qualify the test prescribed and then join under the said rules,
brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which
cannot be said to be in occupied field. It creates a new cadre, a
new field, for its application as carved out from the existing
cadre of Niyojit Teachers. The statutory rule, i.e: the Local
Bodies Teachers Rules-2020 is applicable to the Niyojit Teachers
who were a class separate from the government teachers even
earlier to the rules of 2023; judicially recognized by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Struggle Committee (supra).
46. We cannot countenance the argument especially in the
present scenario of increasing emphasis on continuing education
in all walks of life; generally, in every professional activity and
particularly, in upgrading the standards of teaching, which
ensures that the teaching professionals are in sync with the recent
developments which is very relevant and significant considering
the fact that it is the teachers who mould the future generations
of any nation. Elementary education, and its significance cannot
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
be over emphasized as has been observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Devesh Sharma v. Union of India; 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 985. In this context, we cannot but notice that there is
no compulsion on the Niyojit Teachers to sit for the competency
test, as was the case earlier in the efficiency test. A Niyojit
Teacher could as well opt not to appear for the competency test,
in which event, he or she loses the privilege of migration to the
cadre of Exclusive Teachers, but still is enabled continuation as a
Niyojit Teacher under the Local Bodies Teachers Rules- 2020.
The opportunity provided to exercise an option to keep away from
the competency test without fear of the consequence of a
termination commends us, and the emphasis on continuing
education reinforces our resolve, to reject the contention. We
cannot but observe that the rule only facilitates at least some of
the Niyojit Teachers to move ahead in their quest for equivalence
with parity of pay and other benefits being conferred on them
based on their proved competence through their test
qualification."
25. The Division Bench concluded that Niyojit
Teachers cannot raise a ground of equality to claim equal pay
for equal work. The Division Bench further held that Niyojit
Teachers would definitely be a dying cadre along with the
exclusive teachers who will also, in course of time, be replaced
by cadre of government teachers.
26. Further, the observation of the Apex Court in
paragraph no. 23 of the Jaiveer Singh and Others versus State
of Uttarakhand and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1584, finds relevance in the present case also, in view of the fact
that the petitioners have claimed their entitlement having all the
requisite qualifications before the effective date, i.e. 01.04.2019,
which inter alia is as follows:
"23. It is thus clear that all such teachers
working in either Government/Government
Aided/Unaided Private Schools, were required to acquire
the minimum qualifications by 31st March 2019 or they
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
would face dismissal from service. It appears that it was
decided by the Central Government to provide a window
for all such teachers. A perusal of the said
communication would reveal that various directions were
issued so that lakhs of teachers, who were untrained, get
the requisite qualifications prior to 1st April 2019. The
communication addressed by the Director, Elementary
Education, Uttarakhand dated 8th September 2017 to the
Chief Education Officer and District Education Officer,
Uttarakhand would further clarify this position."
27. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar
Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No.6391 of 2021) was
pleased to direct the concerned authority to complete the entire
process of promotion within 90 days from the date of
communication of the order. "The action/inaction of
respondents is totally illegal, unwarranted, unconstitutional as-
well-as bad in law as also in facts".
28. The Apex Court in the case of Panchraj Tiwari Vs.
M.P. State Electricity Board and Others, reported in, (2014) 5
SCC 101, while considering the similar situation where as a
result of complete denial of promotions inter alia held as under
in paragraph no.16:
"16. Instant is a case where there is
complete denial of promotion forever which cannot
be comprehended under the constitutional scheme of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In
this context, we shall refer to a beautiful discussion
on this aspect in S. S. Bola case (supra) at
paragraph 153. The relevant portion reads as
follows:
"153. AB. A distinction between
right to be considered for promotion and an
interest to be considered for promotion has
always been maintained. Seniority is a facet
of interest. The rules prescribe the method of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
recruitment/selection. Seniority is governed
by the rules existing as on the date of
consideration for promotion. Seniority is
required to be worked out according to the
existing rules. No one has a vested right to
promotion or seniority. But an officer has an
interest to seniority acquired by working out
the rules. The seniority should be taken away
only by operation of valid law. Right to be
considered for promotion is a rule prescribed
by conditions of service. A rule which affects
chances of promotion of a person relates to
conditions of service. The rule/provision in
an Act merely affecting the chances of
promotion would not be regarded as varying
the conditions of service. The chances of
promotion are not conditions of service. A
rule which merely affects the chances of
promotion does not amount to change in the
conditions of service. However, once a
declaration of law, on the basis of existing
rules, is made by a constitutional court and a
mandamus is issued or direction given for its
enforcement by preparing the seniority list,
operation of the declaration of law and the
mandamus and directions issued by the Court
is the result of the declaration of law but not
the operation of the rules per se."
(Emphasis supplied)
29. The concern of the petitioners is that after
completing kalavadhi of 12 years of the continuous service as
Niyojit Teacher from their effective dates of their appointment,
they became entitled for promotion and financial upgradation is
based on statutory Provisions of Rules and denial of promotion
to them is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Otherwise also, the petitioners having
obtained in service training in terms of the mandate of Sub
Section 2 of Section 23 of the RTE Act, 2009 after having
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
fulfilled required qualifications in terms of NCTE Notifications
dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011, they became entitled for
requisite remuneration and pay scale from the date of their
acquiring requisite academic qualifications by maintaining
uniformity in respect of all the teachers of Primary Classes
(Class I-V) in terms of Sub Section 3 of Section 23 of RTE Act,
2009. From the facts as narrated above, I find that the statutory
Rule 15(cha) of Rules, 2012 and Rule 16 of Rules, 2020
provides for promotion after completing 12 years of service.
Thus, non consideration for promotion of the petitioners and
like teachers at the relevant time is solely attributable on the part
of the Education Department, Government of Bihar and there is
no fault on the part of the teachers. The petitioners and like
teachers cannot be denied the promotional benefit on account of
inaction on the part of the respondent authorities. The Rules,
2012 and Rules, 2020 have been framed by the State
Government as per the mandate of Sub Section 3 of Section 23
of RTE Act, 2009. Therefore, the Rules has to be applied in
uniform manner and inaction on the part of the State
Government can only amount to be in violation of the statutory
Rules by deliberately denying promotion to the petitioners and
like teachers, such action has been deprecated by the Apex
Patna High Court CWJC No.2511 of 2025 dt.28-08-2025
Court in the case of Panchraj Tiwary (supra).
30. In above background, the petitioners shall be
treated to be promoted and the respondents are legally bound to
carry on steps for granting promotion in terms of Rules, 2012
and Rules, 2020 to the petitioners and like teachers who had
already acquired in service qualification and who are still
continuing are entitled for promotion from the due date as per
their seniority which is required to be given from the date they
had obtained the requisite qualification in terms of RTE Act,
2009.
31. The respondents are directed to first prepare a
gradation list of all such teachers and give promotion by
working out inter se seniority in accordance with law within
three months from the date of communication of this order.
32. In light of the discussions made hereinabove and
governing Rules and the law laid down by the Apex Court, the
writ petition is allowed. There is no order as to costs.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 27.03.2025
Uploading Date 28.08.2025
Transmission Date N.A.
