Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

On 30 April 2021, the Patna High Court delivered an oral judgment in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 675 of 2021, addressing a petition filed by a group of teachers challenging various provisions in the Bihar Zila Parishad Secondary and Higher Secondary School Service Rules, 2020.

The petitioners, who were not represented at the time of hearing, had raised concerns over inconsistencies and alleged discrimination in the Rules related to promotions, grade pay, headmaster appointments, provident fund applicability, and transfer conditions between male and female teachers.

The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar held that the Court could not grant the reliefs sought because such issues fall within the domain of policy-making and legislation, not judicial law-making. However, the Court provided the petitioners with a clear route to redress by directing them to approach the competent administrative authorities.

Background and Context

The Bihar Zila Parishad Secondary and Higher Secondary School Service Rules, 2020 were framed to govern recruitment, promotion, and service conditions of teachers working in Zila Parishad-run schools across the state.

Soon after their notification, various teacher associations began pointing out disparities, particularly in pay structure, promotion policy, and other service-related benefits between secondary and higher secondary teachers.

The petitioners in this case sought a comprehensive judicial intervention to remove what they perceived as unconstitutional inconsistencies within the Rules.

Petitioners’ Key Demands

The petitioners prayed for multiple directions, which included:

1. Equal Pay and Promotion Benefits:
   To extend to higher secondary teachers the same benefit provided to secondary teachers under Rule 7(2)(1), where grade pay increases from ₹2400 to ₹2800 after four years of service.
2. Fair Opportunity for Headmaster Appointment:
   They contended that Rule 8 on headmaster appointment discriminated against teachers appointed under smaller administrative units. According to them, those appointed under bigger units like the Zila Parishad enjoyed better promotion prospects, violating Article 16 of the Constitution (equal opportunity in public employment).
3. Correction in EPF Provision:
   Rule 12(v) allegedly limited the applicability of Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) benefits only to those earning ₹15,000 per month, which the petitioners said was inconsistent with the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
4. Equal Transfer Rights for Male and Female Teachers:
   Rule 16(iv) provided wider voluntary transfer options for female teachers than for male teachers. The petitioners argued this violated Article 14 (equality before law).
5. Correction in Terminology:
   They requested that the Hindi term “Pradhan Adhyapak” be used correctly in the Rules as “Pradhanadhyapak,” following proper Hindi grammar.
6. General Rectification:
   Finally, they asked the Court to direct the authorities to address all other discrepancies they had mentioned in their representation dated 27 August 2020.

Court’s Observations

• The Bench noted that no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners, even though a hearing link had been sent and the matter was called multiple times.
• Nevertheless, the Court considered the written contentions presented in the petition.
• The judges clarified that courts cannot legislate or compel the legislature to enact or amend laws as per the petitioners’ preferences.
• Judicial review can address constitutional violations, but framing or modifying service rules lies within the executive’s administrative domain.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision

1. Limits of Judicial Power:
   The High Court reiterated a well-established constitutional principle — courts cannot issue a mandamus to the legislature directing it to make or modify rules in a particular manner.
2. Alternative Remedy:
   The Court observed that the petitioners’ grievances related to administrative implementation and policy inconsistencies. Hence, the appropriate remedy was to approach the competent administrative authority.
3. Direction to the Petitioners:
   The Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Education Department, Government of Bihar, to ventilate their grievances.
4. Direction to the State:
   The State’s counsel, Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari (AC to AAG-10), assured the Court that any such representation, when filed, would be considered expeditiously and preferably within four months.
5. Outcome:
   The petition was disposed of, and all issues were kept open for reconsideration by the authorities.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• Judicial Restraint in Policy Matters:
  This decision underscores that service conditions and pay structures are legislative or executive functions. Courts will not step into the role of the policymaker.
• Procedural Guidance for Teachers:
  Teachers dissatisfied with service rule anomalies must submit a formal representation to the Education Department instead of seeking judicial amendment of rules.
• Time-Bound Administrative Response:
  The State is bound to decide any representation from teachers within four months, ensuring accountability and timely redress.
• Equality and Rationalisation Concerns Acknowledged:
  Although the Court did not grant relief, it recognized that the petitioners’ issues — particularly regarding pay parity and transfer policies — warrant examination by the State.
• Encouragement of Constructive Dialogue:
  The judgment promotes dialogue between teacher associations and the government for rule rectification rather than direct judicial intervention.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and Court’s Decision

• Whether the Court can direct the State to amend service rules or frame new ones?
  Decision: No. Courts cannot legislate or direct the executive to legislate.
• What is the proper forum for redressing grievances about service rules?
  Decision: Petitioners should approach the competent administrative authority (Education Department).
• What relief was granted?
  Decision: Petition disposed of with liberty to represent to authorities. The State must decide such representation within four months.

Case Title

Petitioners vs. State of Bihar & Others (regarding modification of Bihar Zila Parishad Secondary and Higher Secondary School Service Rules, 2020)

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 675 of 2021

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 599

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sanjay Karol
and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar

(Oral Judgment delivered on 30 April 2021)

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• None appeared — for the petitioners
• Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, AC to AAG-10 — for the State of Bihar

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNjc1IzIwMjEjMSNO-XvBWyl0OlOo=

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.