Sudha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6717 of 2025 ====================================================== Sudha Kumari Wife of Guddu Kumar, Resident of Village- Nimi, P.S.- Daniyama, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Director, People Education Directorate 3rd Floor, Room No-351 Vikash Bhawan New Secretariat, Bailey Road Patna.

4.

The Commissioner, Patna Commissionery, Patna. 5.

The District Magistrate, Patna.

6.

The District Programme Officer, Secondary Education and Literacy, Patna. 7.

The District Education Officer, Patna.

8.

The Block Education Officer, Daniyama, District- Patna. 9.

The Head Master, Upgraded Secondary School Nimi, Block Daniyama, District- Patna.

10.

Shambhu Kumar S/o Not known, Resident of Village- Mohamadpur, P.SSabnima Block Baniyanpur, Sub Division- Barh, District- Patna. 11.

Santosh Kumar S/o Not known, Resident of Village- Mohamadpur, P.SSabnima Block Baniyanpur, Sub Division- Barh, District- Patna. 12.

Avinash Kumar Mohan S/o not known, Resident of Village- Mohamadpur, P.S- Sabnima Block Baniyanpur, Sub Division- Barh, District- Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, JC to GA-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-04-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for direction to the respondent-authorities for quashing the letter, dated 09.10.2024, vide letter no. 261, passed by the District Programme Officer, Secondary Education and Literacy, Patna, canceling the appointment of the petitioner as Siksha

2/4 Sevak in Upgraded Secondar School, Nimi, Daniyama, Patna.

3. The Tola Sewak/Talimi Markaz/Shiksha Sewak is appointed under the scheme on contract basis. The post is not statutory and no recruitment rules are followed for their appointment.

4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in a similar matter of Tola Sewak, in CWJC No. 18107 of 2016 (Raj Choudhary v. The State of Bihar and Ors.) has held as follows:- "The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition and has referred to a judgment, dated 17.08.2015, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No.12390 of 2015 as well as to a judgment dated 02.02.2017 rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 2185 of 2015 whereby and whereunder it has been held that since the selection or engagement or hiring of the Tola Sevak is not a permanent appointment under the State, which is required to be considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as since the post of Tola

3/4 Sevak is under a scheme, the same does not create any statutory right in favour of the petitioner, hence writ petitions in such matters as that of Tola Sevaks are not maintainable. Having regard to the aforesaid judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court as also by the learned Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable, hence the same is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to such other remedies as are available under the law."

5. The order passed by Co-ordinate Bench presided over by Hon'ble Single Judge in the aforesaid writ application has been affirmed by Division Bench holding that writ petition is not maintainable.

6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment of this Court and the fact that Tola Sewak/Talimi Markaz/Shiksha Sevak does not hold civil post as well as the same is not a statutory post, I also come to the conclusion the writ application is not maintainable.

7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. However, the petitioner is given liberty to take

4/4 recourse to such other remedy as is available under the law. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) ashwani/- U