Introduction:

In Ms. Divya Dubey v. Smt. Rashmi Arun Shami and Others, Contempt Case No. 5849 of 2023, the Madhya Pradesh High Court was confronted with a serious question concerning obedience to judicial orders and the limits of administrative discretion in the face of binding judicial determinations. Justice Pranay Verma, while deciding a batch of contempt petitions, examined whether a senior official of the Education Department had willfully and deliberately disobeyed a prior judgment of the High Court by re-imposing a Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) condition on a woman appointed on compassionate grounds, despite the Court having conclusively held that such a qualification was not mandatory in her case. The petitioner, Ms. Divya Dubey, had been appointed on 09 February 2023 to the post of Prayogshala Shikshak following the death of her father, the sole earning member of her family. Her appointment, however, was abruptly cancelled the very next day on the ground that she had not cleared TET with the prescribed percentage. This cancellation was challenged before the High Court, which by its order dated 11 August 2023 quashed the cancellation and upheld her appointment, clearly ruling that at the relevant time there was no requirement of TET and that even otherwise, the applicable rules permitted relaxation of such conditions in compassionate appointment cases. Despite this categorical finding, the respondent authority, while issuing a so-called compliance order on 15 March 2024, reinstated the petitioner but imposed a fresh condition mandating that she must clear TET within three years. This led the petitioner to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging deliberate and willful disobedience of the Court’s earlier order.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that the conduct of the respondent authority amounted to a clear, willful, and deliberate violation of the binding judgment of the High Court dated 11 August 2023. It was argued that the issue of TET qualification had been conclusively settled by the Court, which had categorically held that at the time of the death of the petitioner’s father and at the time of her application for compassionate appointment, there was no requirement to clear TET, and that even otherwise, the rules governing compassionate appointment empowered the department to relax such eligibility conditions. According to the petitioner, once the cancellation of her appointment was quashed, the legal consequence was automatic revival of her original appointment dated 09 February 2023, leaving no scope for the respondent to impose any new or additional conditions. The petitioner submitted that the compliance order dated 15 March 2024 was not a genuine act of compliance but a colourable exercise intended to nullify the effect of the judicial decision by indirectly reintroducing a disqualified requirement that had already been rejected by the Court. Such conduct, it was urged, strikes at the very authority of the judiciary and undermines the rule of law. The petitioner emphasised that contempt jurisdiction is not merely punitive but is meant to ensure that judicial orders are respected and implemented in letter and spirit, and that allowing the respondent’s action to go unchecked would set a dangerous precedent where administrative authorities could effectively sit in appeal over judicial pronouncements. On these grounds, the petitioner prayed that the respondent be held guilty of contempt and appropriate punishment be imposed to uphold the majesty of law.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent:

The respondent authority sought to defend the compliance order by contending that there was no intention to disobey or violate the order of the High Court and that the condition requiring the petitioner to clear TET within three years was imposed in the larger interest of maintaining educational standards. It was argued that the petitioner had been reinstated pursuant to the Court’s order and therefore, there was substantial compliance with the judgment. The respondent attempted to portray the imposition of the TET condition as a prospective requirement rather than a revival of the earlier disqualification, suggesting that it was a reasonable administrative measure consistent with prevailing policies governing teacher qualifications. It was further contended that contempt jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and that unless there is clear and intentional disobedience, the Court should refrain from holding an अधिकारी guilty of contempt. The respondent thus urged the Court to take a lenient view, submit that any perceived deviation was at best a misunderstanding of the scope of the earlier order, and argued that the matter did not warrant invocation of the Court’s contempt powers.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully considering the rival submissions and examining the record, the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the respondent’s defence and held that the conduct in question amounted to willful and deliberate contempt of court. Justice Pranay Verma observed that the earlier judgment dated 11 August 2023 had conclusively and unequivocally settled the issue of TET qualification insofar as the petitioner was concerned, and therefore, it was not open to the respondent authority to reintroduce the same condition in any form. The Court emphasised that once a judicial finding has attained finality, an administrative authority is bound to implement it faithfully and cannot circumvent it under the guise of compliance. The Bench categorically held that the order dated 15 March 2024 was not a fresh appointment order but merely a compliance order, and in fact, no such order was even required, since the quashing of the cancellation automatically revived the original appointment dated 09 February 2023. By imposing a condition requiring the petitioner to clear TET within three years, the respondent had effectively attempted to negate a specific judicial finding, an act which the Court described as a “gross violation and willful breach and disobedience” of its order. The Court underscored that permitting such conduct would erode the authority of judicial decisions and encourage administrative defiance, which cannot be countenanced in a constitutional system governed by the rule of law. Consequently, the Court held the respondent guilty of contempt; however, in keeping with principles of natural justice, it granted the respondent an opportunity of hearing on the question of punishment and directed that the matter be listed on 10 March 2026 for further proceedings.