Can a court find prima facie contempt and still hold its hand? In a dispute over teachers’ appointment scrutiny, the Allahabad High Court did exactly that, giving the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, and two other officials one last chance of three months to comply with its January 2026 order.
Prayagraj: A prima facie case of contempt is made out against the Principal Secretary (Basic Education) of Uttar Pradesh and two other officials, the Allahabad High Court has held, for not carrying out its January 22, 2026 direction on a comprehensive, statewide teachers’ appointment scrutiny. Many appointments of Assistant Teachers were alleged to rest on forged or fabricated certificates. Even so, the Court gave the officials “one more opportunity” to comply within three months [Brajesh Kumar Bagwar v. Parth Sarthi Sensharma, Principal Secretary (Basic Education), Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others].
Justice Piyush Agrawal passed the order on November 5, 2026 on a contempt application filed by Brajesh Kumar Bagwar against Principal Secretary (Basic Education) Parth Sarthi Sensharma and two others.
The order that started it
The directions under challenge came from a bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan on January 22, 2026. That bench had noted a “disturbing pattern” in which a large number of Assistant Teachers had secured appointments on the strength of forged and fabricated certificates, fake documents or deliberate concealment of material facts. Despite several circulars and instructions from the State Government, it found, the authorities responsible for the purity of the education system had not taken effective and timely action against such appointments.
“The inaction on the part of the authorities not only perpetuates fraud but also strikes at the very root of the education system, causing grave prejudice to the interest of students, which is of paramount and overriding consideration for this Court.”
According to that bench, such persons had continued in service for years “in collusion” with the management of institutions and, in many cases, with the “active connivance or tacit approval” of the concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari.
It issued a mandamus directing the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, to undertake a comprehensive and time-bound scrutiny of Assistant Teachers’ appointments across the State, and to initiate stringent disciplinary and penal action against officials found to have colluded with, abetted or deliberately ignored fraudulent appointments. The exercise was to be completed expeditiously, preferably within six months of receipt of a certified copy of that order.
The contempt application
The applicant’s case was that a certified copy of the January 22 order had been served on the opposite parties for compliance. He alleged that the officials had nonetheless wilfully failed to act on the directions, which, he said, amounted to civil contempt punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
A prima facie finding, and a last chance
Justice Agrawal recorded a prima facie view on the officials’ conduct:
“Prima facie, a case of contempt has been made out for punishing the opposite party(s) for willful disobedience of the writ Court order.”
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, though, the Court chose not to proceed further at this stage. The opposite parties were given one more opportunity to comply with the January order “in its letter and spirit” within three months from the date a copy of the November 5 order is produced before them.
For now, the contempt application stands disposed of. The applicant has liberty to move a fresh application if the January 2026 order is not complied with within the time granted.
Why the order matters
Contempt jurisdiction exists to make sure that a writ court’s directions are actually carried out. A prima facie finding of wilful disobedience against the head of a State department is a serious step, and the Court has placed it on record even while holding back punishment. The officials now have a fixed window, and the applicant has an express liberty to return if the deadline is missed.
The underlying January mandamus concerns the integrity of the primary school teaching cadre in Uttar Pradesh. The Court has treated the interests of students as the overriding consideration, and the statewide scrutiny it ordered, together with action against officials who allowed irregular appointments to continue, remains pending. Individual teachers whose appointments are questioned will be entitled to be heard in that process.
Case Title: Brajesh Kumar Bagwar v. Parth Sarthi Sensharma, Principal Secretary (Basic Education), Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others (Contempt Application)
Bench: Justice Piyush Agrawal, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: November 5, 2026
