Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Vs Yogendra Kumar Singh, Joint Director Education Ayodhya — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Vs Yogendra Kumar Singh, Joint Director Education Ayodhya — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the contempt application was dismissed as infructuous and notice, if any, stands discharged.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent complied with the judgment and order dated 06.03.2025 of the writ Court by deciding the School Management's representation himself, or failed to comply (making him liable to punishment) by merely forwarding the representation to the DIOS with certain directions.

Court's answer

After hearing the parties and going through the record, the Court found that a detailed order dated 08.07.2025 running into several pages had been passed after hearing the parties concerned and thereafter taking a decision and directing the DIOS to constitute a Committee and get the appointment-related documents examined and then pass an order; therefore, on the representation of the applicant, the order having been passed, the judgment and order passed by the writ Court has been complied with.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion above, the present contempt application has become infructuous and stands dismissed as infructuous.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1231 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 8; Manish Kumar, J.; decided December 3, 2025). The applicant sought contempt proceedings against Yogendra Kumar Singh, Joint Director of Education, Ayodhya, for alleged non-compliance with the writ judgment and order dated 06.03.2025, which had directed opposite party no.9 (Joint Director of Education, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya) to take a decision on the School Management's representation against the report dated 01.01.2025, expeditiously and preferably within three weeks of receipt of the certified copy, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the Management. Learned Standing Counsel relied on a compliance affidavit filed on 15.07.2025 enclosing the respondent's order dated 08.07.2025; learned counsel for the applicant countered that the respondent had merely forwarded the representation to the DIOS with certain directions instead of deciding it himself. The Court found that a detailed order dated 08.07.2025, running into several pages, had been passed after hearing the parties concerned, taking a decision, and directing the DIOS to constitute a Committee and get the appointment-related documents examined and then pass an order; accordingly the writ Court's judgment and order stood complied with. The contempt application was held infructuous and dismissed as such; notice, if any, stands discharged.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1231 of 2025

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Yogendra Kumar Singh, Joint Director Education Ayodhya

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jyotinjay Verma 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 06.03.2025. The relevant portion of the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

"6. In view thereof, since the application by the School Management against the report dated 01.01.2025 is still pending consideration, the opposite party no.9 i.e. Joint Director of Education, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya is directed to take a decision with regard to the said representation made by the Management expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date certified copy of this order is submitted before the said authority, in case there is no legal impediment in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the Management. Consequential action shall be on the basis of fresh decision made by the said authority."

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that a compliance affidavit has already been filed on 15.07.2025 enclosing therein the copy of the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the respondent and the judgment and order passed by the writ Court has been complied with as such the present contempt application has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed as infructuous.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the direction is to the respondent to decide the representation whereas he has forwarded the same to the DIOS concerned with certain directions for taking decision, hence the judgment and order passed in the writ petition has not been complied with and the respondent is liable to be punished.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that a detailed order has been passed on 08.07.2025 running in several pages after hearing the parties concerned and thereafter taking a decision and directing the DIOS to constitute a Committee and get the appointment related documents examined and then pass an order, so on the representation of the applicant, the order has been passed and the judgment and order passed by the writ Court has been complied with.

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present contempt application has become infructuous and is dismissed as infructuous.

CAPL No. 1231 of 2025

2

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