Patna High Court
Shashi Kant Lal ChaudhariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court found no perversity or palpable unreasonableness in the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
Summary
Shashi Kant Lal Chaudhari, appointed as a Tola Swayamsevak in 2010, sought continuity of service, payment of due salary and allowances, and quashing of an order rejecting his original appeal. The State Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal without legal consideration, leading him to file a writ petition which was held non‑maintainable by a Single Judge, relying on a 2017 Patna High Court decision. Chaudhari appealed this order through a Letters Patent Appeal, arguing that his appointment was a permanent post falling within the jurisdiction of Article 226. The respondents contended that the Tola Swayamsevak position is not a permanent appointment and therefore not amenable to judicial review. The Court examined the earlier judgment (L.P.A. No. 2185 of 2015) and found no perversity or palpable unreasonableness in the Single Judge’s decision. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appointment of a Tola Swayamsevak constitutes a permanent appointment under the State, making the writ petition maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Whether the Single Judge’s order dismissing the writ petition was perverse or unreasonably erroneous.
Subjects
- appointment
- service continuity
- writ petition
- Article 226
- Tola Swayamsevak
- maintainability
- Letters Patent Appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.575 of 2025
Arising out of
C.W.J.C. No. 17938 of 2023
======================================================
Shashi Kant Lal Chaudhari, Son of Late Ladoo Chaudhary @ Ladu Lal
Chaudhary, Resident of village Karichak, Post Chapki, District- Begusarai.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Joint Secretary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Begusarai.
4. The District Programme Officer, (Establishment), Begusarai.
5. The Block Education Officer, Begusarai Block District Begusarai.
6. The Principal Upgraded Urdu Middle School, Karichak, District- Begusarai.
7. The District Programme Officer, Sharve Siksha Abhiyan, Begusarai.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jai Kishor Poddar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Addl. Advocate General (13)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 16-04-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Shashi
Kant Lal Chaudhari challenging the order dated 07.01.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 17938 of
2023 in holding that in view of the judgment dated 02.02.2017
passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 2185 of 2015, the writ
petition is not maintainable.
The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking
Patna High Court L.P.A No.575 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
2/4
for the following relief(s):
“(A) For quashing of the order dated 13-1-2023
passed by the State Appellate Authority
(Education Department, Bihar) Patna in
O.A. No. 1022/2022 whereby and
whereunder the original appeal filed by the
petitioner has been rejected without any
legal consideration.
(B) For grant him continuity of service on the
post of Tola Swam Sewak at Karichak Tola
in Up graded Urdu Middle School,
Karichak, District- Begusarai till the
completion of 60 years of age in view of the
memo No. 1529 dated 26-08-2015 of the
Education Department, Bihar
(C) A direction for payment of due salary
allowances of the petitioner with interest.
(D) Any other order/orders under the facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. Though no counter affidavit was filed during the
pendency of the writ petition, but in the Letters Patent Appeal
counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents No. 3
to 5, sworn by the District Education Officer, Begusarai,
wherein, it is stated that the appellant was appointed as Tola
Swayamsevak in the light of Tola Swayamsevak Niyojan Form
No. 05 issued under the joint signature of the then Chairman of
Tola Swayamsevak Committee -cum- Tola Samitee Urdu M.S.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.575 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
3/4
Karichak, Block- Begusarai and the then H.M. of Urdu M.S.
Karichak, Block- Begusarai. The appellant joined on 06.03.2010
in the aforesaid school and worked continuously till 05.03.2013
and he has received all his salary for the working period. It is
further stated that the then D.P.O. (Secondary Education) -cum-
B.E.O., Begusarai submitted a report regarding niyojan as Tola
Swayamsevak to the D.P.O. (Establishment), Begusarai vide
Letter No.472 dated 30.11.2023 which makes it clear that the
appellant had not filed his application before the concerned
Committee for his reniyojan and in inquiry the said centre was
also found to be closed. It is further stated in the counter
affidavit that neither the appellant’s niyojan as Tola
Swayamsevak had been extended by the competent authority
nor the work had been taken from him after March, 2012, and as
such, the scheme would not be applicable. It is further stated
that the Division Bench decision on which reliance has been
placed by the learned Single Judge states that since the selection
or engagement or hiring of the Tola Swayamsevak is not a
permanent appointment under the State, which is required to be
considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
3. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court L.P.A No.575 of 2025 dt.16-04-2026
4/4
counsel for the respective parties and after going through the
stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit, and particularly
in view of the Division Bench order dated 02.02.2017 passed by
this Court in L.P.A. No. 2185 of 2015; since we find no
perversity or palpable unreasonableness in the order passed by
the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to entertain this
Letters Patent Appeal, which stands dismissed.
4. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 18.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…