Santosh Kumar Vs Somaru Pradhan, District Inspector of Schools, Siddharthanagar — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Santosh Kumar Vs Somaru Pradhan, District Inspector of Schools, Siddharthanagar — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 18.05.2023 (Special Appeal), which directed the DIOS to reconsider approval of appointment of respondent no. 1 under Regulation 101, has been complied with. +1 more

Court's answer

The DIOS passed a detailed and speaking order taking Regulation 101 of the Act, 1921 into consideration, thereby complying with the judgment and order dated 18.05.2023.

Ratio / Principle

More than a year after the compliance affidavit was filed, no objection has been filed by the applicant against it.

Key takeaways

Since the judgment and order passed in the Special Appeal has been complied with and remains unobjected, the present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous and notice, if any, stands discharged.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad HC (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 8 — Contempt Application (Civ.) No. 1090 of 2024, Santosh Kumar v. Somaru Pradhan, DIOS Siddharthanagar; decided December 3, 2025 (Manish Kumar, J.). Preferred against alleged non-compliance of judgment and order dated 18.05.2023 (Special Appeal), which had set aside the writ court judgment dated 08.12.2017 only to the extent it directed payment of salary, and remitted to the DIOS reconsideration of approval of appointment of respondent no. 1 (the applicant) per Regulation 101, Chapter III of the Regulations under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, with decision to be taken positively within two months and merits expressly left unadjudicated. Learned Standing Counsel reported a compliance affidavit dated 29.05.2024/02.07.2024 enclosing a detailed and speaking order dated 16.04.2024 reconsidering the applicant's claim per Regulation 101, other relevant provisions and Government orders, and rejecting it; no objection was filed for over a year despite the applicant's claim that the order was wrongly passed. Finding the Special Appeal judgment complied with, the contempt application was dismissed as infructuous and notice, if any, stood discharged.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1090 of 2024

Santosh Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Somaru Pradhan, District Inspector Of Schools, Siddharthanagar

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Shri Kishan Prajapati, Abhishek Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:

Court No. - 8

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

The present contempt application has been preferred against the alleged non compliance of the judgment and order dated 18.05.2023. The relevant paragraph of the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

"We find that so far as the writ Court has quashed the order dated 03.09.2011, the same does not require any interference but the direction to pay salary has to be set aside for the reason that in such circumstances, the writ Court should have remitted the matter back to the DIOS for consideration of approval of appointment of the respondent in the light of the provisions contained in Regulation 101, Chapter III of the Regulations made under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as in the impugned order before the writ Court merits of the matter had not been considered. Not having done so, we set aside the writ Court's judgment dated 08.12.2017 only to the extent it directs the opposite parties before the writ Court to pay salary to the petitioner instead we provide that the DIOS shall now reconsider the matter regarding approval of the appointment of the respondent no. 1 who was the petitioner before the writ Court in the light of Regulation 101 referred above and the law on the subject and take a decision on the subject positively within two months. Based on it, the consequences shall follow, as per law. It is made clear that we have not at all entered into nor adjudicated the merits of the claim of the respondent no. 1 herein."

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that a compliance affidavit has been filed by the respondent on 29.05.2024/02.07.2024 enclosing therein the copy of the detailed and speaking order dated 16.04.2024 whereby the respondent has re-considered the claim of the applicant in the light of the provisions contained in Regulation 101, chapter III of the Regulations made under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1921) and other relevant provisions and Government orders and rejected the claim of the applicant. Against the said compliance affidavit, though more than a year has been passed, no objection has been filed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order has been passed wrongly.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the direction to the DIOS was to reconsider the matter regarding the approval of the appointment of the respondent no. 1 in the appeal i.e. the present applicant in the light of Regulation 101 of the Act,

CAPL No. 1090 of 2024

2

1921 and a detailed and speaking order has been passed taking into consideration Regulation 101 of the Act, 1921, and after more than a year of filing compliance affidavit, no objection has been filed by the applicant. The judgment and order passed in the Special Appeal has been complied with.

In view of the above, the present contempt application is dismissed as infructuous.

Notice, if any, stands discharged.

December 3, 2025 Nitesh

(Manish Kumar,J.)

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench