Madhya Pradesh High Court Holds Senior Govt Official Guilty Of Contempt For Re-imposing TET Condition, Violating Court's Earlier Directions

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held a senior education department official guilty of willful and deliberate contempt for re-imposing a Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) requirement on a woman appointed on compassionate grounds, despite a categorical judicial finding that such qualification was not mandatory in her case.

Justice Pranay Verma, while deciding a batch of contempt petitions, observed that the respondent authority had acted in “gross violation and willful breach” of the Court's earlier order dated 11 August 2023, passed in a writ petition filed by the petitioner.

Background Of The Case

The petitioner was appointed on 09 February 2023 on compassionate grounds to the post of Prayogshala Shikshak following the death of her father, the sole earning member of the family. However, her appointment was cancelled the very next day on the ground that she had not cleared the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) with the prescribed percentage.

Challenging the cancellation, the petitioner approached the High Court, which by its order dated 11 August 2023, quashed the cancellation and upheld her appointment. The Court had clearly held that at the time of the death of the petitioner's father and at the time of application for compassionate appointment, there was no requirement of clearing TET, and even otherwise, the applicable rules empowered the department to relax such conditions in cases of compassionate appointment.

Alleged Non-Compliance & Contempt

Despite the clear findings, while issuing a compliance order dated 15 March 2024, the respondent authority reinstated the petitioner but imposed a condition requiring her to mandatorily clear TET within three years.

The petitioner challenged this condition as being contrary to the binding judicial directions, leading to the present contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution, read with Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Court's Findings

The High Court noted that its earlier judgment had conclusively settled the issue of TET qualification, and therefore, it was not open to the respondent to reintroduce the same condition under the guise of compliance.

The Court categorically held: “Once the issue as regards the petitioner not requiring to pass TET with prescribed percentage had been set to rest by this Court, it was not open for respondent No.2 to have again imposed such a condition upon the petitioner.”

It further observed that the order dated 15.03.2024 was not a fresh appointment order but merely a compliance order, and in fact, no such order was even necessary, since setting aside the cancellation automatically revived the original appointment dated 09.02.2023.

Terming the respondent's action as an attempt to negate a specific judicial finding, the Court held:

“Such an act… amounts to gross violation and willful breach and disobedience of the order passed by this Court.”

Holding the respondent guilty of contempt, the Court, however, granted him an opportunity of hearing on the question of punishment and directed that the matter be listed on 10 March 2026 for further proceedings.

Case: MS. DIVYA DUBEY Vs SMT. RASHMI ARUN SHAMI AND OTHERS

Case No: CONC No. 5849 of 2023

Click here to read order