Patna High Court
Chandan Kumar ManjhiversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
A writ petition filed by a Tola Sewak is not maintainable under Article 226, and therefore the petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, a Tola Sewak, filed a writ petition seeking the production of a suspension letter, quashing of a subsequent order, and reinstatement to his post. The respondents objected, arguing that a Tola Sewak is not a civil or statutory post and therefore cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Article 226. The Court referred to a series of its own precedents which consistently held that engagements of Tola Sewak are not permanent appointments and are not maintainable before the High Court. Since the writ petition was filed by a person whose position is not covered by the writ jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition as non‑maintainable. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000.
Issues considered
- Whether a Tola Sewak, being a non‑civil and non‑statutory post, can maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Whether the orders of suspension and denial of appointment to the petitioner are amenable to judicial review.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- maintainability
- Tola Sewak
- civil service
- natural justice
- suspension
- reinstatement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21555 of 2018
======================================================
Chandan Kumar Manjhi Son of Dasai Manjhi, Resident of Village- Masaurha
Telpa, Police Station- Bikram, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Education Officer, Patna.
3. The District Programme Officer, R.M.S.Saksharta, Patna.
4. The Block Education Officer, Bikram, Block- Bikram, District- Patna.
5. The In-Charge Head Master, Primary School, Masaurha, Telpa, Bikram,
District- Patna. null null
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Abhanjali, AC to GA-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the respondents-State.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application has
prayed for the grant of following reliefs:
“(i) For directing the respondents
to produce the letter no. 315 dated
27.06.2017 passed and issued by the Block
Education Officer, Bikram, District- Patna
and for quashing of the letter dated
28.06.2017 issued by the respondent no. 5 in
consequence to the letter no. 315 dated
27.06.2017 issued by the respondent no. 4,
whereby and where under services of the
petitioner as Tola Sewak has been suspended
till approval of the competent authority.
(ii) For quashing the order dated
8.03.2018 contained in Memo No.240
passed by the District Programme Officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.21555 of 2018(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/4
(Saksharta), Patna by which the
representation of the petitioner for joining
on the post of Tola Sevak has been rejected
in a very mechanical manner without
appreciating the facts and circumstances as
well as prevailing guidelines for the post of
Tola Sevak.
(iii) For a direction to the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner for the
post of Tola Sevak to discharge his duties in
Primary School, Masaurha, Telpa, Bikram,
District- Patna with all consequential
benefits.
(iv) For any other relief or reliefs
to which the petitioner is entitled to in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Admittedly this has been filed at the instance of a
Tola Sewak.
4. In the judgment and order dated 02.02.2017 passed
in LPA No.2185 of 2015, Division Bench of this Court has
unequivocally held that selection or engagement or hiring of the
Tola Sewak is not any permanent appointment under the State,
which is required to be considered under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
5. Thereafter, by another judgment and order dated
02.01.2024 a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding
CWJC No.15189 of 2019 has also held that Talimi Markaz
Shikshak Swayam Sevi and Tola Sewak do not hold civil post as
well as they are not even a statutory post and therefore, no writ
is maintainable at their behest.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21555 of 2018(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/4
6. Thereafter, in another judgment and order dated
01.03.2021 passed in LPA No.630 of 2019 the Division Bench
of this Court has reiterated the same position that no writ is
maintainable at the instance of Tola Sewak. Further in another
judgment and order dated 19.11.2025 passed in CWJC
No.22280 of 2014, this Court has also taken the same view and
had dismissed the writ application on the ground that it was
filed at the best of Tola Sewak.
7. All these judgments were given to learned counsel
for the petitioner for perusal, after a preliminary objection was
raised by respondents-State objecting to the maintainability of
the present writ application. Despite perusing all these orders
passed by this Court in different cases, learned counsel
appearing for petitioner kept on insisting for deciding the case
on merit stating that the impugned order passed against the
petitioner is patently illegal and without jurisdiction and in
complete violation of principle of natural justice. He further
submitted that the impugned order has been passed in teeth of
the Guideline of 2018.
8. All the above submissions could only have been
gone into if the writ petition was maintainable at the behest of
Tola Sewak. The learned counsel for the petitioner unnecessarily
Patna High Court CWJC No.21555 of 2018(3) dt.20-01-2026
4/4
wasted the time of this Court for nearly one hour, despite having
perused all the above judgments and orders.
9. In view of the settled position of law that no writ is
maintainable at the behest of Tola Sewak, this writ application is
dismissed as not maintainable with a cost of Rs.25,000/-
imposed on the petitioner, for insisting to decide the case on
merit. Cost must be deposited with Bihar Legal Services
Authority.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
U
Checking your session…