loader image

MP High Court Holds Officer Guilty of Contempt for Re-Imposing TET Condition After Court Quashed Appointment Cancellation

MP High Court Holds Officer Guilty of Contempt for Re-Imposing TET Condition After Court Quashed Appointment Cancellation

Divya Dubey v. Rashmi Arun Shami, [Decided on 20.01.2026]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held a government officer guilty of contempt for imposing a condition requiring a candidate appointed on compassionate grounds to clear the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), despite an earlier court order setting aside the cancellation of her appointment on that very ground.

The contempt petitions arose from the High Court’s order dated August 11, 2023, in which it had quashed the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment as Prayogshala Shikshak. The appointment had initially been granted on February 9, 2023, following the death of her father, the sole earning member of the family, but was cancelled the next day for want of TET qualification.

Allowing the writ petition earlier, the High Court had held that at the time of the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment, there was no requirement to have cleared the TET. It also noted that the department had the power to relax such qualifications in compassionate cases.

In the contempt proceedings, the authorities produced a compliance order dated March 15, 2024, reinstating the petitioner but imposing a condition that she must clear the TET within three years. The Court found this condition to be directly contrary to its earlier order, which had conclusively held that the petitioner was not required to pass the TET.

The Court observed that once the cancellation order was set aside, the original appointment automatically stood revived, and no fresh conditions could be imposed. It held that the authority’s action amounted to an attempt to overreach the court’s order and constituted a gross and willful violation.

Accordingly, the High Court held the officer concerned guilty of contempt and listed the matter for hearing on the question of sentence on March 10, 2026.


Appearances:

Shri Utkarsh Agrawal – Advocate for the petitioner (through VC). Shri Mukesh Parwal – Advocate for the respondents

PDF Icon

Divya Dubey v. Rashmi Arun Shami

Preview PDF