Disposed¶21

Anil Bajpai @ Anil Kumar Bajpai and Another v. Sri Pratap Singh Baghel, Director Basic Edu. Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2026CAPL/4792/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of court; wilful disobedience of writ order dated 29.05.2024; Director Basic Education U.P. Lucknow; Block Education Officer appointment/promotion; Rule 5(1) U.P. Adhinashth Shiksha (Pranti Upvidyalaya Nirikshak) Seva Niyamavali, 1992 ('Rules 1992'); Government Order dated 14.07.2011; rejected excuses — pending State Government guidance and proposed rule amendment; compliance affidavit; framing of charges; personal appearance ordered; listed 15.01.2026; Manish Kumar, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Court No. 8.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions only: 24 hours' time granted for filing a compliance affidavit, failing which the respondent shall appear in person on the next date fixed for the purpose of framing of charges; case listed on 15.01.2026. ¶21

Anil Bajpai @ Anil Kumar Bajpai and Another vs Sri Pratap Singh Baghel, Director Basic Edu. Lko. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent's grounds for non-compliance with the writ court's order dated 29.05.2024 (pending guidance from the State Government and the proposed amendment of Rule 5(1) of Rules 1992) were acceptable, and whether his non-compliance amounted to wilful defiance.

¶19

Court's answer

The grounds advanced by the respondent for non-compliance — seeking guidance from the State Government and the proposed amendment of Rule 5(1) — are not acceptable and are turned down; after the judgment the respondent was bound to comply and could not rely on a proposed amendment to deny compliance with the writ court's order.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The respondent's failure to comply constitutes a clear defiance of the writ court's order which is wilful, particularly as an earlier opportunity had already been given by this Court's order dated 16.12.2025.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4792 of 2024 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench): Applicant sought action for non-compliance with the writ court's order dated 29.05.2024 requiring the Director, Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow to reconsider the applicants' case for appointment/promotion to the post of Block Education Officer in terms of Rule 5(1) of the U.P. Adhinashth Shiksha (Pranti Upvidyalaya Nirikshak) Seva Niyamavali, 1992. The respondent's earlier 'compliance' — a decision dated 19.12.2024 resting on the Government Order dated 14.07.2011 rather than Rule 5(1) — and a further opportunity given by order dated 16.12.2025 failed to cure the default. Holding that pending State guidance and the proposed amendment of Rule 5(1) furnish no excuse, Manish Kumar, J. declared the non-compliance a clear wilful defiance, granted 24 hours for filing a compliance affidavit, failing which the respondent must appear in person for framing of charges; case listed on 15.01.2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4792 of 2024

¶3

Anil Bajpai @ Anil Kumar Bajpai And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sri Pratap Singh Baghel, Director Basic Edu. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avinash Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶9

Court No. - 8

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶11

The respondent is present in person.

¶12

The present contempt application has been preferred against the alleged non-compliance of judgment and order dated 29.05.2024, the relevant paras of the order is quoted hereinbelow:

¶13

"10. Accordingly, the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Director, Basic Education, U.P. Lucknow is directed to take to reconsider petitioners' case for appointment/promotion on the post of Block Education Officer in terms of Rule 5 (1) of the Rules of 1992. Such a decision shall be taken by the authorities within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this is served upon the concerned authority. "

¶14

The respondent earlier also filed compliance affidavit enclosing therein the copy of the decision dated 19.12.2024 deciding the claim of the applicant in pursuance of the Government Order dated 14.07.2011 without considering the case as per Rule 5(1), U.P. Adhinashth Shiksha (Pranti Upvidyalaya Nirikshak) Seva Niyamavali, 1992, (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1992) as directed by the writ court. Despite the said anomaly or defiance by the respondent, on the request, one more opportunity was given by passing order dated 16.12.2025 to revisit and pass an order as per provisions of Rule 5(1) of Rules, 1992) .

¶15

The respondent, who is present in person has submitted that he has asked for guidance from the State Government, which is pending and secondly, Rule 5(1) of Rules 1992 is proposed to be amended and that are the

¶16

CAPL No. 4792 of 2024

¶17

¶18

reasons for non-compliance of judgment and order passed by the writ court.

¶19

The ground taken by the respondent for non-compliance or defiance of the judgment and order passed by the writ court is not acceptable and hereby turned down for the reasons after passing of the judgment the respondent is not supposed to seek guidance from the State Government and secondly, on the basis of proposed amendment he cannot deny to comply the judgment and order passed by the writ court. It is a clear defiance of the order passed by the writ court which is wilful on the part of the respondent and that too when the opportunity was given to him earlier also by this Court by order dated 16.12.2025.

¶20

At this stage, the respondent who is present in person prays for 24 hours' time for filing compliance affidavit.

¶21

As such, 24 hours' time is granted for filing compliance affidavit, failing which the respondent shall appear in person on the next date fixed for the purpose of framing of charges.

¶22

List this case on 15.01.2026.

¶23

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶24

January 12, 2026

¶25

S. Kumar

¶26

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

Anil Bajpai @ Anil Kumar Bajpai and Another v. Sri Pratap Singh Baghel, Director Basic Edu. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Bajpai @ Anil Kumar Bajpai and Another v. Sri Pratap Singh Baghel, Director Basic Edu. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Singh and 2 Others vs Manisha Trighatia, Commissioner and Secy. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. and Another

Sushil Kumar Agarwal vs Sri Manoj Kumar Singh Sub-Divisional Magistrate Tahsil Sadar, Dist. Lko.

Rajesh Kumar Baiswar vs Sri Indra Vikram Singh, Director Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Kisan Mandi Bhawan Lko.

Juvenile Xxx Thru. His Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Disha vs Sri Vijay Pratap Singh Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Hardoi

Deshraj Singh and 8 Others vs Shri Ajay Chauhan Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others