Allahabad High Court

MAHESH SINGH @ MAHESH SINGH YADAVversusSHRI MANOJ KUMAR DWIVEDI

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

The court held that the contempt application is not maintainable and consigned it to the record.

Summary

The applicant Mahesh Singh filed a contempt application alleging willful defiance of a 19 April 2007 order in a writ petition concerning his ad‑hoc appointment as a teacher and the illegal appointment of the headmaster's sons. The respondent institution contested the authenticity of appointment documents and argued that the applicant had not performed any duties since July 1990, thus was not entitled to salary. The court examined the factual dispute over district bifurcation, the validity of the documents, and the statutory prohibition under Section 16‑E‑10 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act against appointing relatives of the headmaster. It held that the issues of salary, pension and alleged discrimination are matters for a proper civil proceeding, not contempt. Consequently, the contempt application was consigned to the record, leaving the applicant free to pursue appropriate remedies.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent's conduct amounts to contempt of the 2007 order
Whether the applicant is entitled to salary and pension for the period of alleged illegal restraint
Whether the appointment of the headmaster's sons violates Section 16‑E‑10 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act
Whether the dispute should be decided in a contempt proceeding or a regular civil suit

Legislation cited

U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act — s. 16-E-10

Subjects

contempt
civil contempt
salary entitlement
pension
illegal appointment
ad hoc employee
U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act
discrimination

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6109 of 2026

Mahesh Singh @ Mahesh Singh Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Shri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Banshi Dhar Mishra, Shalini Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

Court No. - 53
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. The present contempt application had been preferred alleging willful
defiance of the order dated 19.04.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 12329 of 1991, order whereof is quoted hereinunder.-

"R.V.S. Higher Secondary School, Kanhijari, district Kanpur Dehat was
formerly recognized up to Junior High School and was granted
recognition up to High School on 27.5.1981. Though there was no
sanctioned post of teacher in the L.T. Grade, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2
were appointed in L.T. Grade we.f. 1.1.1983 and 1.10.1982 respectively.
Four posts of Assistant Teachers in the L.T. Grade were sanctioned by the
State Government on 25.4.1984. The Committee of Management of the
institution, thereafter appointed the petitioners as L.T. Grade teachers on
ad hoc basis vide letter of appointment dated 18.7.1984, appended as
Annexure I to the writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioners is that Head Master of the institution-
respondent no. 2 appointed his two sons in place of the petitioners and
the petitioners were not allowed to discharge their duties w.e.f. July,
1990. The petitioners have prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to
the respondents for payment of their salary w.e.f. 1.7.1990 and continue
to pay the same till regularly selected candidates join the posts held by
the petitioners.
Even after the case was taken in the revised list, no one appeared for the
respondents and, therefore, only counsel for the petitioners could advance
arguments. Heard him and perused the record.
CAPL No. 6109 of 2026
2

A bare perusal of paragraphs 16 and 20 of the Counter Affidavit sworn
by Sri Sita Ram Gupta, Manager of the institution, in question, shows that
he has alleged that Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition, i.e.,
appointment letter and its intimation sent to the respondents are forged
documents. Paragraphs 16 and 20 of the aforesaid Counter Affidavit are
quoted below :-
"16. That the Assistant District Inspector of Schools Kanpur and District
Inspector of Schools Kanpur issued some letters on 21.7.1984, 1.8.1984
and 3.8.1984 which shows that till 1984 it was merely district Kanpur and
not the Kanpur Dehat....
20. That the petitioners have filed some forged documents in the writ
petition as Annexure 1, 2 and 3 showing Kanpur Dehat on 18.7.1984 and
20.7.84 shwoing forged signature of the answering respondent as the
Principal."
In reply to the averments made in paragraphs 16 and 20 of the Counter
Affidavit, the petitioners, in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the rejoinder
affidavit, have stated that :-

"12. That the contents of paragraphs 16,17,18,and 19 of the counter
affidavit, as stated are deliberately misleading. If in the letters, referred
to in paragraph under reply, as per habit, the district had been mentioned
as district Kanpur, no inference can be drawn that district Kanpur had
not been bifurcated in 2 districts upto August, 1984. The maker of the
Counter Affidavit, as of fact, has to establish that district Kanpur was
bifurcated after August, 1984 as a fact, on the basis of relevant records
and not by inference. As stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the district
Kanpur was bifurcased in 2 districts in the year 1983 and the deponent
shall produce relevant gazette notification to establish the same.
13. That the contents of paragraph no. 20 of the counter affidavit are
wholly false. Annexures 1,2 and 3 to the writ petition bear the genuine
signautes of the maker of the counter affidavit and that of Sri Ram Vilas
Srivastava, the then Head Master of the institution respectively."
Petitioners have not filed any notification about bifurcation of Kanpur
district into Kanpur Nagar and Kanpur Dehat. The date of bifurcation of
Kanpur into Kanpur Nagar and Kanpur Dehat was enquired from
District Judge Kanpur who informed that that it was bifurcated into the
two aforesaid districts vide Government Order dated 26.11.1985, thus,
CAPL No. 6109 of 2026
3

Annexures 1 to 3 cannot be said to be reliable documents.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were not allowed to perform
duties w.e.f. 1.7.1990. They were appointed as ad hoc employees and
their appointment was admittedly not approved by District Inspector of
Schools. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to any salary for the
period they did not perform work. It may be that they were illegally
restrained by the respondents from signing the attendance sheet and were
not allowed to perform teaching work, but the fact remains that they did
not perform teaching work and cannot claim salary.

In so far as the allegation of engagement of sons of Head Master in place
of the petitioners is concerned, the District Inspector of Schools in his
counter affidavit has clearly stated that he had issued notice to the
institution and recommended the higher authorities for cancellation of the
appointment of sons of the Head Master in view of Section 16-E-10 of the
U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Act. Engagement or
disengagement of sons of the Head Master in place of the petitioners is
material for adjudication of the instant case. Even if Annexures 1 to 3 to
the writ petition are treated to be genuine documents, the petitioners
would not have any better right than 'ad hoc' appointees as per the terms
of their letter of appointment which provided that they would continue in
service till regularly selected candidate from the Selection Committee
joins but it does not mean that the services of the petitioners could not be
dispensed with. However, it does not give any right to the Headmaster to
appoint his sons in place of the petitioners by illegally not allowing them
to perform their duties.
It is admitted fact that the Headmaster of the institution was in service
when his sons were appointed. Though he calims not to have participated
in the selection proceedings, but as the head of the institution certainly
would have carried weight on the selection committee while they were
considering the appointment of his sons.
There is a clear bar in law in such appointment of the blood relations of
the head of the institution and the member of the Committee of
Management. Merely because the Headmaster conveniently removed
himself from participation in the selection process by the Selection
Committee will not ratify the selection as legal and valid selection.
The two sons of the Headmaster are continuing till today in service as no
CAPL No. 6109 of 2026
4

candidates have joined after regular selection and the petitioners having
been illegaly restrained from performing their duties in terms of the
appointment letter, are entitled to their salary since the date of their
illegal termination.
In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned orders are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to the
benefits of service as they had been illegally restrained from performing
their duties due to the appointment of two sons of the Headmaster of the
institution, in question. It is further directed that the since salary has not
been illegally paid to the petitioners on account of illegal appointment of
two sons of the Headmaster of the institution, it shall be recovered from
them and paid to the petitioners to meet the ends of justice. No order as to
costs."

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though Surendra Singh
Yadav was sailing on the same boat and was similarly situated. He, post
retirement in the year 2018, has been paid post retiral benefits. But the
applicant who superannuated in the year 2025 is not being paid salary and
pensionary benefits without considering the import and the impact of the
order of the writ court dated 19.04.2007.

3. In the opinion of the Court, the opposite parties were required to accord
salary to the petitioner while recovering the same from two sons of the
Headmaster. The question whether pension is payable or not and whether
there has been discrimination vis-a-vis, the applicant and Surendra Singh
Yadav is a matter which is to be raised and adjudicated in an appropriate
proceedings which is definitely not the contempt.

4. Accordingly the contempt application is consigned to record, leaving it
open for the applicant to pursue the remedies which are permissible under
law.

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 8, 2026
Rajesh

Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…