E-Paper
HC gives UP govt 3 more months to comply with January 2026 order on scrutiny of teachers’ appointments
While hearing a contempt petition over non-compliance with the January 2026 order, Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that a prima facie case of contempt had been made out against the principal secretary (basic education) and other officials for wilful disobedience of the court’s earlier directions.
Prefer HTon Google
The Allahabad high court has granted the Uttar Pradesh government three more months to comply with its January 2026 order directing a comprehensive, statewide scrutiny of appointments of assistant teachers, particularly those allegedly secured on the strength of forged and fabricated certificates.
While hearing a contempt petition over non-compliance with the January 2026 order, Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that a prima facie case of contempt had been made out against the principal secretary (basic education) and other officials for wilful disobedience of the court’s earlier directions.
The contempt application was filed by Brajesh Kumar Bagwar against principal secretary (basic education) Partha Sarthi Sen Sharma and two others.
The petitioner submitted that a certified copy of the January 22, 2026 order had been served on the authorities concerned for compliance. However, they had wilfully failed to implement the court’s directions, thereby committing civil contempt punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
By an order dated November 5, the court disposed of the contempt application while granting the applicant liberty to move a fresh application seeking compliance with the January order.
It may be recalled that a single bench of the Allahabad high court, in its January 22, 2026 order, 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.
The court had observed that such persons continued to remain in service for years, openly “in collusion” with the managements of institutions and, in many cases, with the “active connivance or tacit approval” of the concerned Basic Shiksha Adhikari.
It had also directed that stringent disciplinary and penal action be initiated against officials found to have colluded with, abetted or deliberately ignored such appointments.
The entire exercise was directed to be completed expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the January 22 order.
