Selection processes for Tola Sevak appointments remain stayed pending disposal of State’s review petition on selection guidelines.

The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to appoint her to the post of Tola Sevak/Siksha Sevak

The District Education Officer (DEO), Kishanganj, had previously issued an order for her appointment via Memo No. 445 dated 13.06.2025 following state selection guidelines

The State (Respondent No. 5) contended that a subsequent departmental order (Memo No. 550 dated 17.06.2026) halted all such appointments across Bihar because the selection guidelines had been set aside by the High Court in LPA No. 805 of 2022 on 25.06.2025

The State further noted that a Review Petition (No. 08 of 2026) regarding that judgment is currently pending

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to immediate appointment based on the DEO's order dated 13.06.2025 despite the subsequent state-wide stay on appointments

2. Whether the pendency of Review Petition No. 08 of 2026 and the judgment in LPA No. 805 of 2022 legally obstructs the Petitioner’s selection process

Administrative instructions governing the selection of Tola Sevak/Siksha Sevak, specifically Memo No. 575 dated 14.09.2023

Judicial precedent established in LPA No. 805 of 2022 (dated 25.06.2025), which set aside previous selection guidelines and mandated fresh instructions

State’s executive power to halt appointments via Memo No. 550 dated 17.06.2026 due to sub-judice matters

The Court balanced the Petitioner’s claim—arising from a valid appointment order issued by the DEO prior to the state-wide halt—against the State’s contention that the legal framework for such appointments is currently under judicial review

While the Petitioner argued that the Division Bench in the LPA case protected existing appointees, the Court noted that the Petitioner was not yet appointed when the process was halted

The Court reasoned that since the appointment process across the entire state is on "halt" pending the outcome of Review Petition No. 08 of 2026, it would be premature to mandate an immediate appointment, but proper to secure the Petitioner's rights subject to the final outcome of the review

The Court ordered that such action must be completed within four weeks of the disposal of the review petition, provided no other legal impediments exist