HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1433 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard Shri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms Meenakshi Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. 2. In pursuance to the earlier order of this Court, Shri Surendra Kumar Tiwari, Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj is present. 3. This contempt petition has been filed alleging non compliance of the judgment and order dated 21.02.2025 passed in Writ A No.1585 of 2025 In Re Santosh Singh vs State of U.P., a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the contempt application. 4. By means of the said order, the writ court had set aside the order dated 15.10.2024 per which the transfer application of the applicant had not been forwarded. The respondents were also directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 5. In pursuance thereof, the respondents have filed an affidavit of compliance annexing three orders dated 21.07.2025, 31.07.2025 and 14.08.2025, copies of which are Annexures-3, 4 & 5 to the compliance affidavit dated 25.08.2025. 6. The argument of Shri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate is that Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Jyoti Prakash, Ran Vijay Singh Santosh Singh .....Applicant(s) Surendra Kumar Tiwari Secy. U.P. Basic Education Board Prayagraj .....Opposite Party(s) orders dated 21.07.2025 and 31.07.2025 that had been passed at an early stretch of time have already been scrutinized by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 and this Court has held that the affidavit of compliance that had been filed earlier by the respondents whereby the orders dated 21.07.2025 and 31.07.2025 had been indicated to have been passed in purported compliance of the order passed by the writ court, were found to be mischievous. 7. The contention is that though the respondents have passed the subsequent order dated 14.08.2025 which is basic reiteration of the earlier orders which have been held to be mischievous and misconceived by this Court and consequently the respondents cannot be allowed to pass one order after the other indicating the same grounds which had already been scrutinized by this Court. 8. Further argument of Shri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate is that after the judgment of the writ court the respondents issued a notice to the applicant calling him to appear before the respondent-contemnor at Allahabad for a personal hearing to which the applicant had responded that as the writ court had indicated that a fresh order is to be passed by the respondents consequently he is not required to appear which has been treated to be a misconduct as finds place in the order dated 14.08.2025. 9. Be that as it may, the facts of the matter remains that the order of the writ court required the respondents to pass an order in accordance with law. Three orders one after the other have been passed, the final order being dated 14.08.2025. Once the writ court did not require the respondent-contemnor to pass an order in a particular manner consequently there cannot be any occasion for the contempt court to sit over the manner in which the order has been passed. It is always open to the applicant to raise a challenge to the said order, in case he is aggrieved by the same before the appropriate court in appropriate proceedings. Merely because the order is not to the satisfaction of the applicant the same cannot entail initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. 10. Mere fact that the earlier orders dated 21.07.2025 and 31.07.2025 have been scrutinized by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025, the same CAPL No. 1433 of 2025 2 cannot depart from settled proposition of law that in case the compliance as made by the authorities by passing fresh orders was not found proper, the applicant may have recourse to challenge the said order and to seek appropriate directions (see Ram Pravesh vs Malti Adarsh Balika Vidyalaya & Anr : SLP (C) No.21857 of 2025) 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the contempt application is dismissed. Notices stand discharged. 12. However, it would be open for the applicant to challenge the said order before the appropriate court in appropriate proceedings. September 16, 2025 prateek CAPL No. 1433 of 2025 3 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench