PATNA, India, Feb. 12 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Jan. 12:

1. Heard Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur, learned Advocate assisted by Mr. Prabhakar Thakur, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Vartika K Kashyap, learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court for the following reliefs:-

"(i) for direction to the respondent no. 4 to grant the promotion in Graduate trained Teacher in terms of rule 15 (Cha) (i) of Bihar Panchayat Teacher (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rule, 2012 after successfully completing 12 years continuous satisfactory service from the date of acquiring the required training for the purpose of promotion in next fixed salary.

(ii) For direction to the respondent no. 4 to fill up the 50% post of graduate teacher by way of promotion under 50% quota reserved for promotion for the teacher holding graduate degree in terms of rule 15(cha) (ii) who have successfully completed 8 years continuous satisfactory service in basic grade.

(iii) For direction to the respondent no. 04 to grant the promotion to the petitioner on the post of headmaster under 50% quota reserved for promotion on the ground that the petitioner have become graduate trained teacher after successful completion of 12 years of continuous satisfactory service in basic grade in terms of rule 15 (Cha) (i) of Bihar Panchayat Teacher (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rule, 2012 and the petitioners are eligible to be considered for promotion on the post of headmaster as the petitioners have also successfully completed 5 years continuous service as graduate grade."

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners, after some arguments, submitted that the case of the petitioners is identical to those of the writ petitioners of CWJC No. 2511 of 2025, where the Court having taken every aspect of the matter held as follows:-

"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 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 1- 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 Court in the case of Panchraj Tiwary (supra).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTc3NTUjMjAyMSMxI04=-thPY2O8lxek=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.