Tola Sevak’s Unimplemented 2024 Reinstatement Order: Patna HC Says Pursue Rule 16 Remedy, Directs State To Appoint District Teachers Appellate Authority Members

The petitioner, appointed as a Tola Sevak in 2009, challenged the non-renewal of his contract, which the authorities based on a finding that his Madhyama certificate was not equivalent to matriculation

In Appeal No. 08 of 2018, the District Appellate Authority, Gopalganj, by order dated 8 May 2024, quashed the relevant departmental letter and directed his reinstatement and payment of outstanding honorarium

The authorities did not implement that order despite the petitioner’s representations. He then sought a writ directing reinstatement and consequential benefits

The State opposed the petition on the ground that Rule 16 of the 2020 Rules provided a remedy for non-compliance

Rule 16 of the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers & Employees (Dispute, Redressal and Appeal) Rules, 2020, provides that, upon non-compliance with an appellate order or a complaint concerning compliance, the Appellate Authority may impose a penalty of up to ₹50,000 after giving the concerned party an adequate opportunity of hearing, and may recommend departmental proceedings or other action against a delinquent employee

The Court applied the principle that where the governing rules provide a specific remedy for enforcement of an order, that remedy should be pursued before approaching the writ court for the same relief

It also referred to State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer @ Kalika Singh, (2003) 5 SCC 448, on the limits of treating a coordinate Bench’s decision as per incuriam: an earlier decision cannot be disregarded merely because a later Bench considers that an aspect was not considered; the later Bench must follow it or refer the matter to a larger Bench if it considers it incorrect on the merits

The Court noted that the petitioner had obtained an order directing reinstatement and payment of arrears, but that Rule 16 expressly provided a mechanism to address non-compliance, including penalties and recommendations for departmental action

It therefore held that the petitioner should pursue that remedy before seeking the writ relief claimed.

The Court considered earlier coordinate-Bench orders relied on by the petitioner, but treated them as per incuriam because Rule 16 had not been brought to those Benches’ attention, referring to Kalika Kuer

It also directed the State authorities to take steps to appoint the Chairman/Member of the District Teachers Appellate Authority at the earliest, preferably within the period specified in the order in Nisha @ Nisha Kumari v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 9132 of 2026