Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Mubarak Ali S/O Shri Fateh Mohd, Qureshi vs Pawan Kumar Goyal, Additional Chief … on 21 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1666/2018
1. Dr Anil Kumar Mathur S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Narayan
Mahtur, Aged About 57 Years, R/o- 31, Abhilasha Dwalika
Nagar, Gali No. 2, Chaurasia Was Road, Ajmer- 305001.
2. Dr. N.k. Ranka S/o Late Shri Bhura Lal Ranka, Aged About
58 Years, R/o 1-16, Shalimar Colony, Adarsh Nagar,
Ajmer- Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Mukul Sharma S/o Late Shri P.c. Sharma, Aged About
63 Years, R/o 11-D, Anand Nagar, Ajmer- Rajasthan.
4. Dr. Shyam Sundar Khandelwal S/o Late Shri Kalyanmal Ji,
Aged About 60 Years, R/o. 39, Anand Nagar, Ajmer-
Rajasthan.
5. Dr. S.k. Verma S/o Late Shri Madan Lal Verma, Aged
About 57 Years, R/o D-5, Shalimar Colony, Adarsh Nagar,
Ajmer- Rajasthan.
6. Dr. Sadashiv Sharma S/o Late Shri Prabhu Lal Sharma,
Aged About 63 Years, R/o Gali 5A, New Govind Nagar,
Ramgunj, Ajmer.
7. Dr. Arun Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Shri B.s. Chaturvedi, Aged
About 56 Years, R/o Near Choudhary Hotel, Ramganj,
Ajmer (Raj.)
8. Dr. K. Girdhar Gopal S/o Late Shri G.s. Krishna Murthy,
Aged About 55 Years, R/o A-14, Main Road,
Chandarvardai Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)
9. Dr. Salkant Kumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Satydev Yadav,
Aged About 54 Years, R/o 102/24, Near Bsnl Tower, Lane
No. 12, Subhash Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
10. Dr. Adarsh Kumar Mathur S/o Shri S.b. Mathur, Aged
About 65 Years, R/o- A-282, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Mr Ashutosh A.t. Pednekar, Commissioner, College
Education And Special Secretary, Block-4, Shiksha
Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
2. Mr. Rajhans Upadhyay, Additional Chief Secretary, Higher
Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Higher Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
2. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 331/2021
1. Sumer Singh S/o Shri Guman Singh Rathore, Aged About
48 Years, Resident Of Dandeu Ram Singh, Tehsil Rajgarh,
District Churu (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (2 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
2. Sukhpal Singh Tomar S/o Kanwal Singh, Aged About 62
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 6, Mandawa, Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
3. Bhanwar Lal Dhabai S/o Laxmanram, Aged About 56
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 7, Opposite Shekhawati
School, Mandawar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
4. Bishan Singh Rathore S/o Shri Kalyan Singh Rathore,
Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Khalasi
Via Mandawar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
5. Ram Gopal S/o Shri Guljari Lal Gurjar, Aged About 45
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Brahmano Ki Dhani,
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Aparna Arora, Principal Secretary Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Shri Sourabh Swami, Commissioner, Secondary Education
Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Shri Shriram Sharma, Secretary, Managing Committee,
Shri Snatan Dharam Panchayat, Senior Secndary School,
Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
4. Shri Vijay Krishan Dhadhnia, Chairman, Shri Snatan
Dharam Panchayat, Senior Secondary School Trust,
Middleton Street, Kolkatta Through President
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Higher Education
Department Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
—-Respondents
3. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 203/2022
1. Mubarak Ali S/o Shri Fateh Mohd, Qureshi, R/o House No.
1079, Jeeva Choudhary Ki Gali, Moti Dungri Road, Jaipur
(Rajasthan.)
2. Syed Qaiser Abbas Zaidi, S/o Shri Wahid Ali Zaidi, Aged
About 62 Years, R/o C/o Plot No. 324/4, H.a.r. Colony,
Char Darwaza, Jaipur (Rajasthan.)
3. Puran Mal Harijan S/o Shri Prahlad Harijan, Aged About
56 Years, R/o Village And Post Jalsoo Via Jahota, Tehil
Amer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan.)
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Pawan Kumar Goyal, Additional Chief Secretary,
Rajasthan Education Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur. Kanaram Director Of Secondary
Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
2. Kanaram Director Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan
Bikaner,
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (3 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
3. Shabbir Khan, Secretary Managing Committee, Anjuman
Talimul Muslemeen, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur Through
Its Secretary.
4. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of
Education Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
4. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1009/2022
1. Dr. Anju Mittal W/o Shri Ashish Mittal, Aged About 54
Years, R/o 403, Vaibhav Paradise, Moti Doongari Road,
Near Dharam Singh Circle, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Kavita Sahni W/o Dr. Anirudh Sahni, Aged About 56
Years, R/o 5-Ka-11, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Dr. Sarita Bang W/o Shri Premchand Bang, Aged About 55
Years, R/o C-204, Manu Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
4. Dr Archana Joshi W/o Shri Harshiv Sharma, Aged About
54 Years, R/o A-1, Bhairav Nagar, Near Sfs, Mansarovar,
Jaipur.
5. Kusum Sharma W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 59 Years, R/o A-72, Amrit Path, Janta Colony,
Jaipur.
6. Mridula Chaturvedi W/o Shri Arun Chaturvedi, Aged About
57 Years, R/o 385-B, Civil Lines, Jaipur.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha, Secretary To The Govt.
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Smt. Suchi Tyagi, Commissioner, College Education,
Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
3. Shri Anirudh Sahani, Secretary, Managing Committee,
Arya Samaj Vidhya Samiti, Rajapark, Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Govt.
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
5. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 27/2023
Smt. Kirandei Wife Of Late Shri Buddharam, Aged About 65
Years, Resident Of Sahyog Nagar (Shakti Nagar No. 2)
Bharatpur, Rajasthan Legal Representative Of Late Shri
Buddharam Son Of Shri Roshan Lal.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal, Additional Chief Secretary,
Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, Director Of Secondary Education,
Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
3. Dr. Lokesh Jindal, Secretary Managing Committee, Shri
Sanatan Dharan Senior Secondary School, Ranjeet Nagar,
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (4 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
6. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 49/2023
Dr. Jagdish Narayan Saini S/o Sh. Sita Ram Saini, R/o House No.
522, Near Rseb Guest House, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur, (Rajasthan).
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Bhawani Singh Detha, Secretary Department Of
Higher Education (College Education) Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Near Statue Circle, Jaipur-
302005.
2. Sh. Sunil Sharma, Commissioner, Directorate Of College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Block No. Iv,
Ds.s.radha Krishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, Jaipur-302015.
3. Shri Ratan Chand Surana, Secretary, Managing
Committee, Shri Jain Terapanth College, Ranawas, District
Pali-306023 (Rajasthan).
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Higher Education (College Education) Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Near Statue Circle, Jaipur-
302005.
—-Respondents
7. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 711/2023
1. Dr. Roshan Lal Kataria S/o Shri Lachhman Dass Kataria,
Aged About 71 Years, R/o 441, Vinoba Basti
Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
2. Dr. Balev Raj Bhateja S/o Shri Kanshi Ram Bhatek, Aged
About 75 Years, R/o 74, Mukharjee Nagar Sriganganagar,
Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Madan Mohan Gupta S/o Late Sir Ram Dhan Gupta,
Aged About 71 Years, R/o House No. K-18, Krishna Ganj
(Ana Sagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. Dr. Gurudutt Prasad S/o Late Shri Hari Shankar Gupta,
Aged About 70 Years, R/o House No. 3561, First Floor,
Green Field Colony, Block-C, Faridabad, Haryana.
5. Shyam Sunder Maheshwari (Since Deceased) S/o Khyali,
Ram, Through His Wife Smt Pushpa Maheshwri, R/o
Hosue No. 3, Block-F, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
6. Dr. Shivendar Pathak (Since Deceased) S/o Late Shri L.d.
Pathak, Through His Wife Smt Savita Pathak, R/o 8-G-6,
Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (5 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Versus
1. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha Secretary To Govt.,
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
3. Shri Avtar Singh Brar, Managing Committee Shri
Gurunanak Khalsa P.g. College And School, Near Teen
Puliya, Hindumalkot Road, Sriganganagar, (Raj.)
4. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
8. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 714/2023
1. Ratan Lal Nolakha S/o Late Shri Choth Mal Ji Nolakha,
Aged About 75 Years, R/o H-19, Madhuvan Colony, Kishan
Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
2. Shashi Prakash Gupta S/o Shri Gopal Lal Gupta, Aged
About 76 Years, R/o 8/c-61, Pratap Nagar, Barkat Nagar,
Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.
3. Purushottam Sharma S/o Shrimohan Lal, Aged About 72
Years, R/o 18, Sudama Nagar, Opposite Glass Factory,
Jaipur.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha, Secretary To The Govt.
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Shri Sumer Singh Bothra, Secretary, S.s. Jain Subodh
Shiksha Samiti, Subodh College Premises, Rambagh
Circle, Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
9. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 716/2023
Amarjeet Singh Maan S/o Shri Chet Singh Maan, Aged About 70
Years, R/o 4-A-4, Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha, Secretary To The Govt.
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Shri Avtar Singh Brar, Managing Committee Shri
Gurunanak Khalsa P.g. College And School, Near Teen
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (6 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Puliya, Hindumalkot Road, Sriganganagar (Raj.).
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan. Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
10. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 893/2023
1. Devender Pal Singh S/o Shri Kuldeep Singh, Aged About
62 Years, R/o 60, Vrindavan Vihar, Sriganganagar,
Rajasthan
2. Chuni Lal Gera S/o Shri Piara Lal Gera, Aged About 72
Years, R/o 1-G-36, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan
3. Dr. Madan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Surajmal Sharma, Aged
About 73 Years, R/o Quarter No.1, Seth G.l.bihani
S.d.shiksha Trust Campus, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha, Secretary To The Govt.,
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n.marg, Jaipur.
3. Shri Neeraj Bihani, Secretary, Managing Committee, Seth
G.l. Bihani Sd Pg College, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College, Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
—-Respondents
11. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1013/2023
1. Surander Kumar Son Of Shri Nathmal, Aged About 54
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 01, Gandhi Nagar, Behind
Telephone Department, Village Nohar, Distt.
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Amarpal Sharma Son Of Shri Kurushetra Gaur, Aged
About 56 Years, Resident Of Sardarpura Bans, Ward No.
25, Lalana Road, Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Naveen Jain, Secretary, Department Of Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Kana Ram, Director, Secondary Education, Education
Department, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
3. Shri Raghuvir Sharma, President, Management
Committee, Shri Nehru Bal Vatika Senior Secondary
School, Nohar, Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
4. Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Secretary Management
Committee, Shri Nehru Bal Vatika Senior Secondary
School, Nohar (Hanumangarh).
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (7 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Education, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
12. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 463/2024
Ram Ratan Soni S/o Shri Sitaram Soni, Aged About 70 Years,
R/o Ramam, A-4, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur
(Rajasthan.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Higher
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Subir Kumar, Secretary, Higher Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Shri Pukh Raj Sen, Commissioner, College Education,
Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
13. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 937/2024
Veena Sharma D/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 56
Years, R/o Sangeet Mahal, Ram Leela Maidan, Sikar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Subir Kumar, Secretary, College Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Pukhraj Sain, Commissioner, Directorate Of College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Block No. Iv, Ds. S.
Radha Krishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Shri D.p. Agrawal, Secretary, Managing Committee, Shri
Krishna Satsang Balika Mahavidyalaya, Near Clock Tower,
Sikar (Raj.)
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
14. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 941/2024
Neera Pareek (Since Deceased) Through Her Husband Aditya
Kumar Pareek S/o Shri Kalyan Prasad, Aged About 78 Years, R/o
103, Sukh Sagar Apartment, Rani Sati Raod, Sikar, Rajasthan, At
Prsent R/o Kali Pahadi House No. 3373, Purani Basti, Govind Dev
Ji Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Subir Kumar, Secretary, College Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Pukhraj Sain, Commissioner, Directorate Of College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Block No. Iv, Ds. S.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (8 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Radha Krishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Shri D.p. Agrawal, Secretary, Managing Committee, Shri
Krishna Satsang Balika Mahavidyalaya, Near Clock Tower,
Sikar (Raj.)
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
15. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 946/2024
Raghuveer Saini S/o Late Shri Bhairu Ram, Aged About 52 Years,
R/o Near Pratap Nursery, Devipura Road, Sikar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Subir Kumar, Secretary, College Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Pukhraj Sain, Commissioner, Directorate Of College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Block No. Iv, Ds. S.
Radha Krishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Shri D.p. Agrawal, Secretary, Managing Committee, Shri
Krishna Satsang Balika Mahavidyalaya, Near Clock Tower,
Sikar (Raj.)
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
16. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 962/2024
Gopal Singh Gahlot S/o Late Shri Hanuman Singh Gahlot, Aged
About 48 Years, R/o Near Nagar Parishad, Salasar Road, Sikar,
Rajasthan
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Subir Kumar, Secretary, College Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Shri Pukhraj Sain, Commissioner, Directorate Of College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Block No. Iv, Ds.s.
Radha Krishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur
3. Shri D.p. Agrawal, Secretary, Managing Committee, Shri
Krishna Satsang Balika Mahavidyalaya, Near Clock Tower,
Sikar (Rajasthan)
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
—-Respondents
17. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 963/2024
Shiv Bhagwan Sharma S/o Shri Nath Mal Chotia, Aged About 62
Years, R/o Gayatri Nagar, Radha Kishan Pura, Ward No. 38,
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (9 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Sikar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Subir Kumar, Secretary, College Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Pukhraj Sain, Commissioner, Directorate Of College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Block No. Iv, Ds. S.
Radha Krishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Shri D.p. Agrawal, Secretary, Managing Commitee, Shri
Krishna Satsang Balika Mahavidhyalaya, Near Clok Tower,
Sikar (Rajasthan.)
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
18. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 964/2024
Bhanwar Singh S/o Tiku Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Jyoti
Nagar, Dhod Road, Sikar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Subir Kumar, Secretary, College Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Pukhraj Sain, Commissioner, Directorate Of College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Block No. Iv, Ds. S.
Radha Krishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Shri D.p. Agrawal, Secretary, Managing Committee, Shri
Krishna Satsang Balika Mahavidyalaya, Near Clock Tower,
Sikar (Rajasthan)
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
19. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 965/2024
Sumitra Devi Sharma D/o Shri Shyam Sundar Sharma, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o Durga Colony, Near Lal Singh Colony, Radha
Kishan Pura, Sikar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Subir Kumar, Secretary, College Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Pukhraj Sain, Commissioner, Directorate Of College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Block No. Iv, Ds. S.
Radha Krishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Shri D.p. Agrawal, Secretary, Managing Committee, Shri
Krishna Satsang Balika Mahavidyalaya, Near Clock Tower,
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (10 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Sikar (Rajasthan)
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
20. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 968/2024
Prahlad S/o Shri Bajrang Lal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o In Front
Of Petrol Pump, Savli Bajaj Gram, Sikar, Rajasthan
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Subir Kumar, Secretary, College Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Shri Pukhraj Sain, Commissioner, Directorate Of College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Block No. Iv, Ds.s.
Radha Krishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru,
Marg, Jaipur
3. Shri D.p. Agrawal, Secretary, Managing Committee, Shri
Krishna Satsang Balika Mahavidyalaya, Near Clock Tower,
Sikar (Rajasthan)
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
—-Respondents
21. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1108/2024
Vimla Sharma W/o Sh. A.k. Sharma Spouse/o A K Sharma, Aged
About 71 Years, R/o F-23, Madhuvan Colony, Kisan Marg, Tonk
Phatak, Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Higher Education (College Education) Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Near Statue Circle, Jaipur 302005
2. Dr. Arushi Ajay Malik, Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education (College Education) Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Near Statue Circle, Jaipur 302005
3. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Commissioner, Directorate Of
College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Block No.
Iv, Dr. S. Radha Krishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg, Jaipur 302015
4. Dr. Sanjeev Bhanawat, Secretary, Managing Committee,
Shree Veer Balika Post Graduate College, K.g.b. Ka Rasta,
Johari Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302003
—-Respondents
22. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 30/2025
Dr. Sushil Jain Son Of Shri Jawan Mal Jain, Aged About 62 Years,
Resident Of Flat No. 2, Plot No. 68, Neelkanth Colony, Purani
Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (11 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Versus
1. Arushi Malik, Additional Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Commissioner, College Education,
Shiksha Sankul, Jaipur.
3. Shri Sumer Singh Bothara, Secretary, S.s. Jain Subodh
Shiksha Samiti, Subodh College, Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
23. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 31/2025
Dr. Deepesh Jain Son Of Shri D.c Jain, Aged About 72 Years,
Resident Of 240, Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Arushi Malik, Additional Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Commissioner, College Education,
Shiksha Sankul, Jaipur.
3. Shri Sumer Singh Bothara, Secretary, S.s. Jain Subodh
Shiksha Samiti, Subodh College, Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
24. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 32/2025
Abhay Kumar Nahar Son Of Late Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 73
Years, Resident Of 35 Vasundhara Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Arushi Malik, Additional Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Dr. Om Praksash Bairwa, Commissioner, College
Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jaipur.
3. Shri Sumer Singh Bothara, Secretary, S.s. Jain Subodh
Shiksha Samiti, Subodh College, Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
25. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 33/2025
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (12 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Dr. Om Prakash Sharma Son Of Shri Ramkishor Sharma, Aged
About 67 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 81, Prithvi Raj Nagar,
Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Arushi Malik, Additional Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Commissioner, College Education,
Shiksha Sankul, Jaipur.
3. Shri Sumer Singh Bothara, Secretary, S.s. Jain Subodh
Shiksha Samiti, Subodh College, Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
26. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 34/2025
Rakesh Pandey S/o Late Sh. Brij Bhan Pandey, Aged About 71
Years, Resident Of Plot No,. 7, Kailash Vihar, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Arushi Malik, Additional Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Commissioner, College Education,
Shiksha Sankul, Jaipur.
3. Shri Sumer Singh Bothara, Secretary, S.s. Jain Subodh
Shiksha Samiti, Subodh College, Rambagh Circle, Jaipur
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
27. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 90/2025
Prahlad Rai Saini S/o Shri Ram Kumar Saini, Aged About 74
Years, R/o Mahadev Colony, Behind Nehru Park, Salasar Road,
Sikar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Director/ Commissioner, College
Education, Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. Moti Chand Maloo, Secretary, Managing Committee Seth
Gyani Ram Banshidhar Poddar College, Nawalgarh, Distt.
Jhunjhunu.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, College Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (13 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Jaipur.
—-Respondents
28. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 580/2025
Dr. Narinder Pal Kaur Bhatia D/o Shri Sant Singh Bhatia, Aged
About 71 Years, R/o House No 12 Gandhi Nagar, Sriganganagar
(Raj.).
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, Secretary To The Govt.,
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg,
Jaipur.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Govt.,
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
29. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 850/2023
Banwari Lal Sharma Son Of Shri Chaturbhuj Sharma, Aged
About 60 Years, Resident Of Singhal Oil Mil Ke Peechhe, Shiv
Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Aparana Arora, Additional Chief Secretary,
Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Shri Naveen Kumar Jain, Director Of Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Shri Lokesh Jindal, Secretary, Managing Committee Shri
Sanatan Dharam Sr. Sec. School Bharatpur (Raj.)
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
30. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 85/2024
Shri Ramswaroop Sharma S/o Late Shri Birdaram Sharma,
Aged About 78 Years, Legal Representative Of Late Smt. Urmila
Sharma, R/o Matolia Sadan, Dafa Vali, Ajmer Road,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District-Ajmer (Raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Kanaram, Ias, Director, Secondary Education, Samta
Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Shri Nihal Chand Pahadia, Secretary, K.d. Jain Shikshan
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (14 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Parisad, Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
And Secretary, K.d. Jain Sr. Secondary School,
Madanganj-Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
31. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 173/2024
Shri Matadin Jangir S/o Shri Laxminarayan Jangir S/o Shri
Laxminarayan Jangir, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Nansa Gate,
Nawalgarh, Post Nawalgarh Right Now R/o Ward No. 11, Harlal
Ka Ki Kothi, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Naveen Jain, Principal Secretary To The Govt.,
Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Shri Kana Ram, Director/ Commissioner, Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Shri Manoj Kumar Dhaka, District Education Officer,
(Secondary), Jhunjhunu
4. Shri Ranveer Mahala, Secretary/ Principal, Seth
Gajadhar Jaipuria Senior Secondary School, Nawalgarh
(Jhunjhunu)
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary To
The Govt., Department Of Secondary Education,
Secretariat, Jaipur
—-Respondents
32. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 174/2024
Shri Brijesh Kumar Kulshrestha S/o Shri Ramsahai Kulshrestha
S/o Ramsahai Kulshrestha, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Post
Shamshabad, District Agra, Present R/o Ward No. 29, Sheetala
Road, Opp. Rajani General Store, Mathur Colony, Sikar (Raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Naveen Jain, Principal Secretary To The Govt.,
Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Shri Kana Ram, Director/ Commissioner, Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Shri Manoj Kumar Dhaka, District Education Officer,
(Secondary), Jhunjhunu
4. Shri Ranveer Mahala, Secretary/ Principal, Seth
Gajadhar Jaipuria Senior Secondary School, Nawalgarh
(Jhunjhunu)
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary To
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (15 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
The Govt., Department Of Secondary Education,
Secretariat, Jaipur
—-Respondents
33. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 108/2025
Smt. Madhu Rathore W/o Shri Rajeev Rathore Spouse/o
Rajeev, Aged About 62 Years, R/o C-30, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. Arushi Ajey Malik, Secretary, Department Of Higher
Education (College Education), Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Near Statue Circle, Jaipur
302005
2. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Commissioner, Directorate Of
College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Block No.
Iv, Dr. S. Radha Krishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg, Jaipur 302015
3. Sh. Sudarshan Singh Surpura, Secretary, Managing
Committee, Shri Bhawani Niketan Mahila
Mahavidhyalaya, Sikar Road, Jaipur
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Higher Education (College Education) Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Near Statue Circle, Jaipur
302005
—-Respondents
34. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 649/2025
1. Dr. Sanjay Mathur S/o Shri Jeevan Lal Mathur, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o A-185, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Dr. Rajendra Mathur S/o Shri Sukhdeo Narain Mathur,
Aged About 59 Years, R/o 15/167, Chopasani Housing
Board, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Kuldeep Ranka, Additional Chief Secretary Cum
Principal Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan,
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Shri Sachin Mathur, Secretary, Managing Committee,
Lachoo Memorial College Of Science And Technology,
Sector-A, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary
Cum Principal Secretary To The Government Of
Rajasthan, Department Of College Education,
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (16 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Secretariat Jaipur.
—-Respondents
35. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 650/2025
Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Radheyshyam Sharma,
Aged About 54 Years, R/o Karamchari Colony, Behind Hanuman
Mandir(Sursati-Villa), Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur
(Raj.).
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, Secretary To The
Government Of Rajasthan, Department Of College
Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Shri Arvind Patrakar, Secretary, Managing Committee,
Agarwal Kanya P.g. Mahavidhyalaya, Jaipur Road,
Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
—-Respondents
36. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 651/2025
1. Dr. Ravi Prakash Mathur S/o Shri Anand Prakash Mathur,
Aged About 52 Years, R/o B-516, Panchsheel Nagar,
Ajmer, Rajasthan
2. Poonam Chand Acharya S/o Shri Umadutt Acharya,
Aged About 64 Years, R/o 144, Gangaur Nagar, Gali
No.3, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Bhanu Prakash Yeturu, Secretary To The
Government Of Rajasthan, Department Of College
Education, Secretariat Jaipur
2. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg,
Jaipur
3. Shri Neeraj Bihani, Secretary, Managing Committee,
Seth G.l. Bihani Sd Pg College, Sri Ganganagar,
Rajasthan
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
—-Respondents
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (17 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
37. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 674/2025
1. Dr. Gulab Dass Vaishnava S/o Shri Prabhu Dass, Aged
About 57 Years, R/o 269-C, Section 7 Extension, New
Power House Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Dr. Mohammed Shahid S/o Shri Mohammed Ramzan,
Aged About 51 Years, R/o Mohalla Chobdaron, Near
Oswalonk Ka Nyaati Nohra, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Firoz Mohammed Sheikh S/o Late Ameer
Mohammed Sheikh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 13,
Murshid Nagar, Badi Maszid Road, Savina, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. Kaushal Kumar Jain S/o Sobhag Mal Kothari, Aged
About 57 Years, R/o 13, Kamla Nagar, Senthi,
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
5. Dr. Anil Kumar Parihar S/o Shri Prabhat Kumar Parihar,
Aged About 55 Years, R/o 40, Bhanu Banglow, Naya
Pura, Satellite Hospital Road, Mandore, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Kuldeep Ranka, Additional Chief Secretary Cum
Principal, Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan,
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Shri Prakash Chhangani, Secretary, Managing
Committee, Shri Ladhuram Agarchand Gollecha College
Khichan (Phalodi), District Phalodi.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary
Cum Principal Secretary To The Government Of
Rajasthan, Department Of College Education,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
38. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 683/2025
Miss Sudarshana Paul Daughter Of Shri S.p. Paul, Aged About
68 Years, R/o Plot No. 2/10, Cni Sohan Centre, In Front Of
Roadways Bus Stand, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Naveen Jain, Secretary, School Education
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Shri Ashish Modi, Director Secondary Education,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (18 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
3. Shri Remson Victor, Secretary, Mission, Girls Secondary
School, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. Shri Remsom Victor, Bishab Diases Of Rajasthan Cum
Chairman Trajasthan Krishan Board Of Secondary
Education, 2/10 Cni Social Center, In Front Of Bus
Stand, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To The
Government School Education Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
39. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 566/2018
Dr. Atul Prasad Mathur S/o Shri M.p. Mathur, R/o 60 Shri
Vihar Behind Hotel Clarks Amer, Durgapura Jaipur Raj
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Ashutosh A.t. Pednekar Commissioner College
Education And Secretary, Higher Education, Rajasthan
Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur Raj
2. Shri Mukul Goyal Secretary To The Managing
Committee, Agrawal P.g. College, Jaipur Sri Agrasen
Katl, Jaipur Raj
3. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Higher
Education Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul J.l.n. Marg,
Jaipur Raj
—-Respondents
40. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 513/2022
1. Mahavir Singh Son Of Shri Jagmal Singh, Aged About
52 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Jitash
Hanumanpura, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
2. Virendra Singh Shekhawat Son Of Shri Sawai Singh
Shekhawat, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Kalipa
Hadi, Via Islampur, Distt. Jhunjhunu At Present
Residing At Narayan Niwas, Kalipa Hadi House, Bagar,
Distt. Jhunjhunu.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Aparna Arora, Principal Secretary School
Education Dept. Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Kala Ram, Commissioner/director, Secondary
Education, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
3. Shri Umakant Sharma, The Managing Committee Seth
Ghanshyam Das Anandi Lal Rungra Sr. Sec. School,
Adarsh Nagar Bagar, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Through
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (19 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Its Secretary Umakant Sharma.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Education
Department Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
41. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 104/2024
1. Pawan Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Maliram Sharma,
Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
2. Saroj Gaur D/o Shri Keshva Nand Sharma, Aged About
75 Years, Resident Of 16 Dukani, Khurja, Bulandshahr,
Uttar Pradesh.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Pawan Kumar Goyal, Principal Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Shri Gourav Agarwal Director, Secondary Education,
Education Department, Bikaner.
3. Shri Harish Chandra Rohilla, Secretary, Management
Committee, Shri Rani Satiji Balika Hr. Secondary
School, Jhunjhunu.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Education,
Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
42. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 204/2025
Rajendra Gupta S/o Late Shri Triveni Prasad Gupta, Aged
About 70 Years, R/o 107, Bhagirath Nagar, Gopalpura
Byepass, Jaipur 302015, Retired As Senior Teacher
(30.11.2014) From Govt. Senior Secondary School
Nimbodiya, Chaksu, District Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Krishan Kunal, I.a.s., Principal Secretary,
Department Of School Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Shri Ashish Modi, Director, Secondary Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner 334001
3. Shri Amar Chand Ahuja, Secretary, Management
Committee, M.c. Sindhi Panchayat Sr. Secondary
School, New Colony, M.i. Road, Jaipur 302001
4. Shri Amar Chand Ahuja, Secretary, Management
Committee, M.c. Sindhi Panchayat Sr. Secondary
School, Office And Residential Address Flat No. 206,
Vinayak Apartment, Near Chomu House Circle, C-
Scheme, Jaipur 302001
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (20 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
School Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur
—-Respondents
43. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1702/2017
1. H.n. Pakhrot S/o Shri Chaturbhuj Ji, R/o Sharad Villa,
5-C, New Govind Nagar, Ramganj, Ajmer
2. P.c. Jain S/o Shri M.l. Sethi, R/o Anand Nagar, Marg
No. 4, Ajmer
3. B.c. Jain S/o Late Shri Mangi Lal Jain, R/o 2-Bha-5,
Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer
4. H.c. Somani S/o Shri S.c. Somani, R/o 7, Mitra Nagar,
Ratidang, Ajmer
5. L.k. Jain S/o Shri Jawan Mal Jain, R/o 53, Abhiyanta
Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer
6. R.p. Gupta S/o Shri Phool Chand Gupta, R/o G-48, Gg
Block, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmerq
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Rajhansh Upadhyaya Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Government Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Shri Ashutosh Pednekar, Commissioner, College
Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, Jln
Marg, Jaipur
3. Shri J.k. Tayelia, Secretary, Managing Committee, Vijay
Singh Pathik Shramjivi College, Near Allahabad Bank,
Udaipur
4. Shri Anant Bhatnagar, Principal, Vijay Singh Pathik
Shramjivi College, Ana Sagar Circular Road, Ajmer
5. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Higher
Education Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
—-Respondents
44. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1323/2019
Siyaram S/o Shri Devi Ram Sharma, Aged About 65 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 19, Near Faret Road, Surajgarh,
Jhunjhunu (Raj)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. R. Vankateshwaran, Principal Secretary,
Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj)
2. Shri Nathmal Dhadel, Director, Secondary Education,
Bikaner (Raj)
3. Shri Seva Ram Gupta , Secretary, Paliram Brijlal Higher
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (21 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Secondary School, Surajgarh, Surajgarh Mandi, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj)
4. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Education,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj)
—-Respondents
45. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 28/2023
Smt. Krishna Kumari Wife Of Shri Dharmeshwar, Aged About
62 Years, Resident Of Shreeji Market, Chauvurcha, Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal, Additional Chief Secretary,
Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, Director Of Secondary Eduation,
Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.
3. Shri Prem Singh Kuntal, District Education Officer
Secondary Headquarter Bharatpur.
4. Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate Secretary Managing
Committee Shri Surjeet Kanya Secondary School,
Bharatpur Rajasthan.
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
46. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1219/2023
Lal Chand Sharma Son Of Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 57 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Khundi ,
Fatehpura, Via Sihod Badi, District-Sikar, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Navin Kumar Jain, Additional Chief Secretary,
Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Shri Kanaram, Director Of Secondary Education,
Rajasthan, Bikaner Rajasthan.
3. Dr. Mridula Chaturvedi, Block Number 8 Shiksha
Sankul , Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Shiksha Sankul ,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Bhagirath Purohit, Joint Secretary, Shri Mahaveer
Pustakalay Jatiya Bajar Sikar, Rajasthan.
5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Secondary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
47. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 225/2019
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (22 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Bhupanlal Sharma S/o Shri Dharam Singh, Aged About 72
Years, By Caste Brahman, R/o Anah Gate, Bajria, Bharatpur
(Raj.).
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Nareshpal Gangwar, Education Secretary, School
Education And Language, State Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Shri Nathmal Didal, Director/ Commissioner,
Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).
3. Smt. Mithlesh Sharma, District Education Officer,
Secondary First, R.b.m. Hospital Ke Picche, Bharatpur
(Raj.).
4. Shri Sandeep Sharma, President Managing Committee,
Shri Sanatan Dharm Senior Secondary School, Ranjeet
Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj.)
5. Dr. Chandrapal Singh Rathor, Secretary, Managing
Committee, Shri Sanatan Dharm Senior Secondary
School, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj.)
6. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary To
The Govt., Department Of Secondary Education,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
48. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 229/2019
Mohan Singh Sharma S/o Shri Babulal, Aged About 72 Years,
B/c Brahman R/o Shastri Nagar Sewar Road Bharatpur (Raj)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Nareshpal Gangwar Education Secretary School
Education And Language, State Of Rajasthan
Secretariat Jaipur (Raj)
2. Shri Nathmal Didel Director/commissioner Secondary
Education, Rajasthan Bikaner (Raj)
3. Smt. Mithlesh Sharma District Education Officer
Secondary First, R.b.m. Hospital Ke Picche Bharatpur
(Raj)
4. Shri Sandeep Sharma President Managing Committee
Shri Sanatan Dharm Senior Secondary School, Ranjeet
Nagar Bharatpur (Raj)
5. Dr. Chandrapal Singh Rathor Secretary Managing
Committee Shri Sanatan Dharam Senior Secondary
School, Ranjeet Nagar Bharatpur (Raj)
6. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary To
The Govt. Department Of Secondary Education,
Secretariat Jaipur
—-Respondents
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (23 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
49. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 667/2019
1. Dr. Pradeep Parashar S/o Shri Makhan Lal Parashar,
Aged About 58 Years, R/o 364, Vinoba Vihar, Model
Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Khadak Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 48
Years, R/o B-425, Gurjar Ki Thadi, New Sanganer
Road, Jaipur.
3. Rajkumar Sharma S/o Shri Kanhiyalal Sharma, Aged
About 63 Years, R/o 6, Ramlila Ground, M.i. Road,
Jaipur.
4. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Pareek S/o Late Hanuman Prasad
Purohit, Aged About 69 Years, R/o D-77, Nehru Nagar,
Jaipur.
5. Shekhar Nath Vyas S/o Late Shri Nathlal Vyas, Aged
About 61 Years, R/o 167, Opposite Power House,
Chhota Akhara, Brahampuri, Jaipur.
6. Dr. Shalini W/o Chakra Kirti Samvedi, Aged About 47
Years, R/o 5-Cha-13, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
7. Ghanshyam Dhar S/o Shri Gangadhar, Aged About 76
Years, R/o 3-Dha-8, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
8. Ramesh Chand Koolwal S/o Late Shri N.l. Koolwal,
Aged About 68 Years, R/o B-86, Near Jain Mandir,
Nehru Nagar, Panipech, Japiur.
9. Umreo Singh Yadav S/o Shri Moharu Ram Yadav, Aged
About 65 Years, R/o 10/1014, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
10. Dr. (Mrs.) Rekha Tiwari W/o Shri Suresh Tiwari, Aged
About 69 Years, R/o 1, Museum Marg, Jaipur.
11. Dr. Manu Sharad Pathak S/o Dr. Vishnu Chandra
Pathak, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 2/2, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur.
12. Ashok Kumar Jha S/o Late Shri Yadvendra Jha, Aged
About 68 Years, R/o 25, Vijay Nagar, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur.
13. Omprakash Vyas S/o Late Shri R.g. Vyas, Aged About
65 Years, R/o 37, Manwa Ji Ka Bagh, M.d. Road, Jaipur.
14. Dr. Satish Kumar Saxena S/o Shri K.n. Saxena, Aged
About 71 Years, R/o 147, Milap Nagar, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
15. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Hanuman Sahai,
Aged About 68 Years, R/o T-21, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk
Road, Jaipur.
16. Dr. Matadeen Sharma S/o Shri Pooran Mal Sharma,
(Since Deceased), Through His Legal Representative,
His Wife Smt. Sushma Sharma W/o Late Dr. Matadeen
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (24 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 700, Surya Nagar,
Maharishi Marg, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Jaipur.
17. Sudhindra Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Chandr Sen Jain,
Aged About 68 Years, R/o 94/23, Pratap Marg, Agarwal
Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
18. Babu Lal Katoda S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad, Aged
About 68 Years, R/o 103-A, Bank Colony Extension-B,
Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur.
19. Vasudev Sharma S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 68 Years, R/o 113, Mahaveer Nagar-I, Tonk
Road, Durgapura, Jaipur.
20. Arjunlal S/o Shri Balmukund, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
51-A, Central Colony, Opposite Road No. 9,
Vishwakarma, Jaipur.
21. Smt. Vibha Pareek W/o Dr. R.c. Pareek, Aged About 70
Years, R/o D-77, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Vaibhav Galariya, Secretary To The Govt.,
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Pradeep Kumar Bored, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Dr. Dinesh Tripathi, Secretary, Managing Committee Lal
Bahadur Shastri College (Lbs), Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Govt.,
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
50. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 232/2019
1. Man Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Richh Pal Singh
Shekhawat, Aged About 67 Years, R/o B-43 Nityanand
Nagar Gandhi Path Vaishali Nagar Jaipur
2. Dr. Guru Dutt Sharma S/o Shri S.n. Sharma, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o C-36 Peeyush Path Bapu Nagar
Jaipur
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Vaibhav Galariya Secretary To The Govt. Department
Of College Education, Secretariat Jaipur
2. Shri Pradeep Kumar Bored Commissioner College
Education, Rajasthan Shiksha Shankul J.l.n. Marg
Jaipur
3. Shri Dinesh Agarwal Secretary Managing Committee
Shri M.k. Saboo P.g. College Of Commerce, Pilani
District Jhunjhunu (Raj)
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (25 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
4. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, College
Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan Secretariat Jaipur
—-Respondents
51. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 669/2019
1. Dr. Manju Joshi W/o Late Shri R.k. Joshi, Aged About
61 Years, R/o A-30, Flat No. 401, Bella Plazzo, Tilak
Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Om Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Ram Sahai Sharma, Aged
About 64 Years, R/o 2-Chha-6, Kamla Nehru Nagar,
Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
3. Dr. Aditya Sharma S/o Late Shri Krishna Shanker
Sharma, Aged About 71 Years, R/o 3-Ba-36, Jawahar
Nagar, Jaiur.
4. Dr. Pramod Kumar Bhargava S/o Shri M.p. Bhargava,
Aged About 63 Years, R/o 60/141, Rajat Path,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
5. Dr. Ajay Tiwari S/o Late Shri R.s. Tiwari, Aged About
63 Years, R/o C-213, Manu Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
6. Dr. Kamal Kant Gaur S/o Late Col. Jagan Nath Prasad
Gour, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Flat No. 202, Sukh
Samridhi Apartment, A-32-A, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
7. Dr. Hari Narain Gupta S/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal Gupta,
Aged About 65 Years, R/o B-20, Madhuban Colony,
Kiran Marg, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
8. Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Krishan Tiwari,
Aged About 68 Years, R/o 3-Ba-28, Jawahar Nagar,
Jaipur.
9. Santosh Kumar Khunteta S/o Late Shri Badri Narayan
Khunteta, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Plot No. E-46,
Roop Vihar Colony, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur.
10. Prem Shankar Vyas S/o Shri Manohar Lal Vyas, Aged
About 61 Years, R/o House No. 191/294, Brahampuri,
Chhota Aakhada, Murgikhana Road, Brahampuri,
Jaipur.
11. Uttam Ram Pandey (Since Deceased) S/o Shri Laxman
Ram Pandey, R/o 63, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road,
Jaipur, Through His Legal Representative (Wife) Smt.
Suman Pandey, Aged About 60 Years.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Vaibhav Galariya, Secretary To The Govt.,
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Pradeep Kumar Bored, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Dr. Dinesh Tripathi, Secretary, Managing Committee Lal
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (26 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Bahadur Shastri College (Lbs), Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Govt.,
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
52. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 825/2019
1. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Paruthi S/o Late Shri S.n. Paruthi,
Aged About 76 Years, R/o 10/4, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Dr. Rajeshwari Bhatt W/o Dr. Gangadhar Bhatt, Aged
About 78 Years, R/o C-276-A, Bhabha Marg, Tilak,
Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Mohammad Haneef S/o Shri Abdul Majeed, Aged About
65 Years, R/o 69O, Mehnat Nagar, Hatwara, Kachhi
Basti, Jaipur.
4. Jagdish Prasad Chaudhary S/o Shri Onkar Lal, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o 81, Green Nagar, Durgapura,
Jaipur.
5. Ram Narayan S/o Shri Kalyan Jat, Aged About 64
Years, R/o B-97, Bank Officer Colony, Ramnagariya,
Jagatpura, Sanganer, Jaipur.
6. Ajeej Ahmad S/o Shri Inayat Khan, Aged About 69
Years, R/o Khaniya Bandhi Kacchi Basti, Goner Road,
Jaipur.
7. Bhawani Shankar S/o Shri Gangadhar Sharma, Aged
About 69 Years, R/o 311, Bada, Akhada, Brahampuri,
Jaipur.
8. Apoorva Nagar S/o Shri Purushotta, Nagar, Aged About
52 Years, R/o Bl-13, Kala Colony, Behind Genpect,
J.l.n. Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
9. Ashok Kapil S/o Late Shri Devak Ram Sharma, Aged
About 62 Years, R/o D-248, Anand Vihar, Railway
Colony, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
10. Dr. Lalit Shankar Tiwari (Since Deceased) S/o Shri
Kripa Shankar Tiwari, R/o House No. 1, Mahaveer
Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through His Legal
Representative His Wife Dr. (Smt.) Kamlesh Tiwari.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Vaibhav Galariya, Secretary To The Govt.,
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Shri Pradeep Kumar Bored, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan, Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg,
Jaipur.
3. Dr. Dinesh Tiripathi, Secretary, Managing Committee
Lal Bahdur Shastri, College (Lbs), Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Govt.,
Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (27 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
—-Respondents
53. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 17/2023
1. Anil Kumar Gupta Son Of Shri Ved Prakash Gupta,
Aged About 60 Years, R/o 41, Barkat Nagar, Gali No.
17, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Durgesh Kumar Khatri Son Of Shri Nirbhay Ram Khatri,
Aged About 63 Years, R/o 316, Tagore Nagar, Ajmer
Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Gyan Chand Agarwal Son Of Late Shri Sohan Lal
Agarwal, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of L-15,
Sumer Nagr Extension, Golyawas, Mansarovar,
Jaipur,rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Sh. Bhawani Singh Detha, Secretary, Higher Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Sh. Sunil Sharma, I.a.s., Commissioner College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Shri S.s. Bothra, Secretary Managing Committee, Shri
S.s. Jain Subodh P.g. College, Rambagh Circle, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
54. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1062/2019
Ramesh Chandra Sharma S/o Late Sri Tula Ram Sharma,
Aged About 73 Years, R/o 71/29 Sector 7, Pratap Nagar
Sanganer Jaipur 302033
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Vaibhav Galleria, Secretary Higher Education
Government Of Rajasthan Government Secretariat
Jaipur
2. Shri Pradeep Kumar Board, Commissioner, College
Education, Rajasthan Shiksha Shankul, J.l.n. Marg
Jaipur.
3. Shri M.c. Maloo, Secretary To The Managing
Committee Seth Gyaniram Bansidhar Podar College ,
Podar Education Campus, Nawalgarh.
4. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary Higher
Education, Government Of Rajasthan , Government
Secretariat, Jaipur
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (28 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
—-Respondents
55. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 850/2018
Dr. Beena Mathur W/o Shri Brijesh Mathur, R/o A-16,
Mansarovar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer Rajasthan
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Ashutosh A.T. Pednekar, Commissioner College
Education and Special Secretary, Block No.4, Shiksha
Sankul, JLN Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Mr. Rajhans Upadhyay, Additional Chief Secretary,
Higher Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Higher Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
4. DAV College Managing Committee through its
President Chitra Gutpa Road, New Delhi-110055.
5. Dayanand College Ajmer, Through Its Principal Raj.
Dayanand College, Ramganj, Ajmer, Rajasthan
305001.
—-Respondents
56. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 511/2022
1. Smt. Meenakshi Tyagi W/o Sh. Anand Kumar Saxena,
Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 2/182, Sfs,
Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)-302020.
2. Smt. Ranju Mehta W/o Sh. Jaywant Mehta, Aged
About 63 Years, Resident Of 130, Vinoba Vihar,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 302017.
3. Dr. Anuja Tyagi W/o Sh. Akhilesh Tyagi, Aged About
69 Years, Resident Of 2/411, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.) 302004.
4. Smt. Neelima Diwan W/o Sh. Sunil Diwan, Aged
About 67 Years, Resident Of B-41, Ganesh Marg,
Bapur Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 302015.
5. Dr. Tara Singhal W/o Sh. L.n. Singhal, Aged About 66
Years, Resident Of C-12, Ojha Ji Ka Bagh, Gandhi
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
6. Dr. Varsha Sharma W/o Dr. Praveen Sharma, Aged
About 66 Years, Resident Of A-5, Mahavir Udhayan
Path, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
7. Dr. Veenu Bhargava W/o Shri Ashok Bhargava, Aged
About 68 Years, Resident Of Be/503 Lnt South City
Arekare Mico Layout Bannerghatta Road, Banglore.
8. Dr. Seema Agarwal W/o Sh. Sunil Nath Advocate,
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (29 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of N-31, Adinath
Nagar, Jln Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 302018.
9. Dr. Rekha Gupta W/o Sh. Vishnu Gupta, Aged About
60 Years, Resident Of D-592, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.) 302017.
10. Dr. Sarla Sharma D/o Sh. Shyam Sunder Surolia,
Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of 4, Panhsheel
Enclave, Jln Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 302018.
11. Dr. Sunita Mathru D/o Late Sh. Lalit Mohan Mathur,
Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of H.no. 7-D-5, Near
Mama Ki Hotel, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 302004
12. Dr. Ratna Saxena W/o Sh. Sandeep Saxena,
Advocate, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Moti
Kunj, D-2, Malviya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
302001.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha, Principal Secretary, Higher
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Smt. Suchi Tyagi, I.a.s. Commissioner College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Shiksha
Sankul, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Shri Vimal Kumar Bhatia, Secretary Managing
Committee, Kanoria Mahila Mahavidhyalaya,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 302004.
—-Respondents
57. D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1189/2022
1. Ms. Manju Gupta D/o Late Sh. K.c. Gupta, Aged
About 71 Years, Resident Of A-404, Anukampa
Apartments, Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
302017.
2. Ms. Shimantini Rangeya Raghava D/o Late Sh.
Rangeya Raghava, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of
Bhoomika Sector 2-Gha-26, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.) 302004.
3. Dr. Nirja Misra D/o Sh. Harihar Nath Misra, Aged
About 76 Years, Resident Of A 26 B, Kantichandra
Road, Bani Park, Jaipur (Raj.) 302016.
4. Sh. Hemant Kumar Pandey H/o Late Dr. Smt. Deepa
Pandey, Resident Of 48, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
302017.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (30 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
5. Smt. Arti Sah D/o Sh. Saroop Narain Sah, Aged
About 65 Years, Resident Of 48, Marudhar Nagar,
Behind Dcm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
6. Dr. Anuradha Rathore D/o Late Lt. Col.s.k. Singh,
Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of A/5, Shastri Nagar,
Opp. State Bank Of India, Jaipur (Raj.) 302016.
7. Dr. Anita Rakesh D/o Prof. P.n. Srivastava, Aged
About 71 Years, Resident Of 54, Prithvi Nagar,
Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur.
8. Madhu Sethia D/o S.k. Tandon W/o N.m. Sethia, Aged
About 72 Years, Resident Of Club Town Residency Of
Club Town Residency, Block 1/1C, 57/3, Feeder Road,
Kolkata.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Government Of Rajasthan,
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Shri Bhawani Singh Detha, Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Sh. Sunil Sharma, I.a.s Commissioner College
Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Shiksha
Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Shri Vimal Kumar Bhatia, Secretary Managing
Committee, Kanoria Mahila Mahavidhyalaya,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 302004.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina along with
Mr. Himanshu Kala,
Mr. Movil Jeenwal,
Mr. Rajat Choudhary &
Mr. Nrip Raj Singh
Mr. Pradeep Singh
Mr. C.P. Sharma
Mr. Ishwar Lal Jain
Mr. D.P. Sharma
Mr. Vivek Dangi with
Mr. Hitesh Jatawat
Mr. Amin Ali
Mr. Gajendra Singh Katela
Mr. Amit Kumar Dhawan
Mr. Tarun Kumar Verma
Mr. Saurabh Bhandari
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma
Mr. Rajendra Vaish
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (31 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Mr. Kinshuk Jain
Mr. Akhil Simlote
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG assisted by
Ms. Shikha Sharma &
Mr. S.P.S Rajawat
Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG with
Mr. Hardik Singh &
Mr. Avinash Choudhary
Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG assisted by
Mr. H.S. Shekhawat
Mr. Nathu Singh Chauhan
Mr. Mohammed Zubeir
Ms. Nidhi Khandelwal along with
Mr. Anshu Kanwar and
Mr. Bhagchand Bairwa
Mr. Karan Tibrewal
Mr. Mohit Khandelwal
Mr. J.K. Moolchandani
Mr. Aditya Kiran Mathur
Mr. Arnav Sharma on behalf of
Mr. Akash Srivastava
Mr. Tarun Kumar Mishra
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
JUDGMENT
REPORTABLE
Reserved on :: 12.08.2025
Pronounced on :: 21.08.2025
(Per Hon’ble Mr. S.P. Sharma, J)
1. Taking cue from observations made by a Division Bench of
this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.663/2015-State
of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. The Management Committee Sh.
Bhagwan Das Todi College & two other connected appeals
decided on 06.11.2015, these contempt petitions have been
filed in the years 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025
alleging non-compliance of the said judgment.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (32 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
2. The petitioners surprisingly are those who never preferred
any petition claiming their rights either before this Court or before
the Educational Tribunal which deals with cases relating to
teachers working in aided and recognized institutions.
Nonetheless, all of them claim their rights to flow from the
judgment passed by this Court in the case relating to an appeal
preferred by State of Rajasthan and one Managing Committee of
Bhagwan Das Todi College, which were decided commonly by
order dated 06.11.2015.
3. Before we proceed to examine the present contempt
petitions, it would be apposite to notice the orders passed from
time to time at the behest of these petitioners and others
reflecting the abuse of process of law in Bhagwan Das Todi’s
case cited (supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court made
following observations:-
“The Special Appeals filed by the State Government are
without substance and accordingly dismissed and
taking note of the Sec.31(2) of the Act, 1989 we direct
the Non-Government Educational Institutions to
prepare due drawn statement of each of the employees
of their Institution who have worked against sanctioned
& aided posts in regard to their arrears of salary and
other dues which are approved expenditures to the
extent of grant-in-aid and the same be sent to the
State Government and the State Government after its
due verification from their records will make payment
of arrears to each of the employee who either have now
become members of Rules, 2010 or have retired or left
the job (upto the period one has worked) and to other
employees similarly situated under intimation to the
concerned Non- Government Recognized Institution.
However, it may not remain confined to such of the
employees who are covered under the present litigation
and since the employees of the State Government and
the Non-Government Aided Institution are under
litigation at various levels either before the ld.Tribunal
or in this Court and after this issue being settled by us,(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (33 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]we consider it appropriate that let this order be made
applicable mutatis mutandis to all such employees who
are similarly situated, in the manner as directed by this
court and indicated above.
The Non-Government Aided Institutions shall ensure
compliance of this order within two months and the
State Government shall ensure compliance in letter &
spirit within two months thereafter by making actual
payment to the employee of the Non-Government
Aided Institutions.
With these directions, all the special appeals stand
disposed of, in the above terms. There shall be no order
as to costs.”
3.1. The aforesaid judgment was treated by the petitioners to be
a verdict allowing them to claim their rights directly by filing
representation or legal notice to their respective Managing
Committees of the schools where they were working as well as to
the State Government through their schools where they have now
joined after the Rajasthan Voluntary Rural Education Rules, 2010
(for short ‘the Rules of 2010’) had come into force and thereafter,
they filed contempt petitions before the Court directly claiming
their rights as if they were the writ-petitioners or direct
beneficiaries under the decision given by the Court. None of them
mentioned their facts and the exact claim, however, each and
everyone vaguely stated of having not received their due amount
from the Managing Committee including the arrears of pay under
the 5th Pay Commission or the 6th Pay Commission. Their claim was
in a generalized fashion.
4. Without going into the aspect regarding maintainability of
the contempt petitions, bunch of contempt petitions were filed in
the year 2016 before this Court, lead case being D.B. Civil
Contempt Petition No.1200/2016- Managing Committee
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (34 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Shri Bhagwan Das Todi College, Lachhmangarh, Sikar,
Rajasthan Vs. Shri Rajhans Upadhyay Additional Chief
Secretary & Anr., wherein Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 30.11.2017 noticed as under:-
“2. The matter was adjourned from time to time. It
seems that there are serious dispute regarding the pay
scale and other calculations like increment given to the
employees by management and correct data are not
supplied to the Government. Therefore, the
government is not updated.
3. In that view of the matter, it will be very difficult
for us to hold that it is deliberate omission on the part
of the respondents which can call for interference under
Contempt Of Courts Act.
4. However, looking to the over all circumstances of
the case, we are of the considered opinion that the
matters are required to be attended by the highest
officers of the concern department namely
Commissioner College Education, Secretary School
Education, Secretary Sanskrit Education, Secretary
Technical Education, who will look into the matters.”
Division Bench of this Court made following directions:-
“5.Therefore, in all these matters, we issue the following
directions:-
1. The directions which are issued are required to
be complied with by the respondents in its true
spirit.
2. All these contempt petitions will be treated as
representation to the concerned Secretary. Copy
of the same will be given to the concern
Secretary by the petitioners and office is directed
to give copy of the same to each of counsel who
is appearing for the department.
3. Notice will be issued to management by the
Secretary for fixing date of hearing which reads
as under:
In Contempt Petition No.1200/2016,
1639/2016,1640/2016, 1671/2016 & 209/2017
fixed on 18thDecember, 2017 and every five
matters everyday thereafter and hearing will be
fixed on all working days.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (35 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
4. The matters will be heard within 30 days from
the date of hearing and payment will be made
within 15 days from the date of the order as
stated hereinabove.
5. The officers concern will hear the petitioners
as well as officers of the department and
representative of Management and will pass a
reasoned order for accepting or not accepting the
claim of the petitioners.
6. All these formalities will be completed on or
before 25 January, 2018 and payment will be
made on or before 15th February, 2018.
7. After this order is passed by the authority, if
any of the party is aggrieved by the order, it will
be open for him to challenge by way of writ or
file a contempt proceedings before this Court.
6. One of the grievance which has been made is that
the Bank statements are called for. In our considered
opinion, instead of Bank statement, if the balance-
sheet of the concerned Trust/Management is produced
on record, the government will verify record of
Trust/Management on the basis of balance-sheet.
7. If the Management is not cooperating, it is
presumed that they are not obeying the order of the
Court and the government will decide to deduct their
contribution towards grant but payment is to be made
to the petitioners.”
5. It appears that interregnum the orders passed by this Court
in contempt petitions, although there was no order passed by any
Court adjudicating the rights of the petitioners, who had filed
contempt petitions, the State Government examined the cases of
these persons who had come before the Court showing respect to
the Court’s order and several of them were given benefits and
payments were released after the institutes verified their claim.
Second round of contempt petition was again filed by teachers
who belong to other set of institutes and colleges. Neither the
concerned schools or the colleges were party before the Court in
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (36 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Bhagwan Das Todi (supra), nor the facts were available before
the Court, but bunch of 268 contempt petitions was decided on
01.12.2021, lead case being D.B. Civil Contempt Petition
No.740/2016- Shri Banwari Lal Bhukar & Anr. Vs. Anoop
Khinchi, Commissioner, College Education & Ors., wherein
the Division Bench of this Court passed following directions:-
“Consequently, following directions were issued in that
particular case:
“We, therefore, reject the submissions advanced on
behalf of the State Government and direct that:
(a) The admitted amount to which the respondent
No.1 herein is entitled to, shall be made over to her
by the State Government within eight weeks.
(b) The State shall, in accordance with law, be
entitled to recover this money from the institution if
such, institution had drawn grant in-aid in excess of
its entitlement.
(c) If any employees of the State had not discharged
their duties in checking the affairs of the institution,
the State shall also be entitled to proceed against
such employees, in a manner known to law.
We, therefore, dismiss this Special Leave Petition.”
The batch of 268 contempt petitions as well as civil
miscellaneous applications in hand before us have been
filed by large number of teachers/employees, raising
various grievances. In all the cases, the grievance of
the teachers/employees has been that the order passed
by this Court way back in 2015 directing various
benefits to be extended has not been complied with till
date. In some cases, the payments, as claimed by the
teachers/employees have not been made. In some
cases, it is the grievance that nothing has been
released so for. Yet in another batch of cases, a
grievance has been made out that certain payments
which were required to made by the Educational
Institutions have not been made.
We extensively heard the leading arguments from the
side of the contempt petitioners/applicants, learned
Additional Advocate General and also Private Non
Unaided Institutions.
Not only dispute has been adjudicated by this Court,
which has attained finality, in various contempt
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (37 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
petitions where orders have been passed from time to
time, supplementary directions have also been issued
by this Court. In some cases, where the State had
withheld payment raising certain contentions, have
ultimately been rejected by the Supreme Court as is
clear from order dated 09.09.2021 (supra). At this
stage, the State is required to extend the benefits
flowing from the orders of this Court and which have
remained undecided and not released at the earliest.
There is no need for us to keep on issuing directions
one after the other, only to remind the State Authorities
and the Educational Institutions of their respective
exercises required to be undertaken but remained
inconclusive since more than five years. It is high time
that the payments to the teachers/employees in terms
of the orders passed by this court are made at the
earliest.
Needless to emphasise that after the orders, which
have been passed by the Supreme Court on 09.09.2021
in the case of State of Rajasthan Versus Manju Saxena
& Ors. (supra), the defence raised in those cases will no
longer be available to the State Government and for
that reason, no payments can be withheld.
Learned counsel for the parties stated before us that
the payments which are required to be released in
favour of the teachers/employees have to be dealt with
department wise as the contempt petitioners/applicants
belong to different authorities. These authorities are
Commissionerate, College Education; Directorate
School Education; Directorate Sanskrit Education;
Directorate Technical Education; Directorate Secondary
Education; Directorate Agriculture Education; and
Directorate Ayurveda Education.
Each of the Directorate is now required to proceed to
release payments in terms of the directions issued by
this Court earlier on 06.11.2015 in D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) No. 663/2015 and connected appeals and
clarificatory directions issued subsequently in various
contempt petitions, referred to hereinabove, without
further loss of time.
It shall be an obligation on the part of each of the
Directorate, which has been referred to above, to
immediately release the dues payable to the
teachers/employees as per the directions issued by this
Court from time to time and the directions which have
already been issued by the Supreme Court on
09.09.2021 in the case of State of Rajasthan Versus
Manju Saxena & Ors. (supra) wherein, the Supreme
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (38 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Court had directed compliance to be made within a
period of eight weeks.
A brief, but clear order regarding compliance of each of
the contempt petitioners/applicants will have to be
passed by the concerned Directorate within a period of
ten weeks from today. The orders in respect of each
of the contempt petitioners/applicants, which are
required to be passed clearly stating compliance of the
order, shall be reported directly to the Registry of this
Court, which shall be placed before this Court under a
separate registered case.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
contempt petitions/civil miscellaneous applications, at
this stage are disposed off, however, with liberty to
revive, if any individual grievance still remains
unredressed.
We must make it absolutely clear that if ultimately we
find that despite this order, the benefits, which the
teachers/employees were entitled to, have not been
released, this court may take a very serious view of the
matter and erring officials will have to be proceeded
against strictly in accordance with law resulting in all
serious consequences, which an individual case may
deserve.
A copy of this order be placed on record of each
connected petition/application.”
6. In view of the liberty granted, one of the contempt petitions
was revived by the petitioner whereafter, other bunch of contempt
petitions was filed and tagged alongwith revived contempt
petitions in the years 2017, 2018, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and
2025, claiming same kind of benefits without giving details or the
specific claims.
7. In view of the observations made by this Court while
deciding contempt petition on 01.12.2021, several Officers were
called personally to the Court from time to time.
8. Mr. G.S.Gill, learned Additional Advocate General has invited
our attention to the aforesaid facts and submits that there has
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (39 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
been no adjudication relating to the so-called claims of all the
petitioners, nor they have chosen to file any claim petition either
before the Educational Tribunal or before this Court. There is no
verdict in their favour, but on the basis of earlier contempt
petitions having been entertained and directions given in the
contempt petitions, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, which
is in the nature of writ, petitioners are seeking benefits which may
not be available to them. He has raised question of jurisdiction of
passing the orders in contempt petitions which is in the nature of
directions and submits that adequate opportunity to contest the
case is not available in contempt proceedings, as the contempt
proceedings are in the nature of execution. In order to maintain a
contempt proceeding, one must be able to bring before the Court
a deliberate and willful disobedience having been committed of an
order passed in favour of any individual. By way of contempt
petitions, claims cannot be settled and left open to the State
Government authorities in turn to decide.
9. Learned counsels who are appearing on behalf of the
petitioners in the respective cases have however, submitted that
once there are directions issued in contempt proceedings, the
same are binding and are required to be complied with. It is also
further submitted by the learned Counsels that the judgment
passed in the case Bhagwan Das Todi (supra) was a judgment in
rem and would, therefore, be applicable to the petitioners and
they were not required to file writ petition or the appeal before the
Educational Tribunal for adjudication of claim and it was the duty
of the State to examine and pass orders with regard to the
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (40 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
petitioners. In support of their submissions, learned counsels have
also relied on the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the
cases of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Arvind Kumar
Srivastava and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 347 and Girish Mittal
Vs. Parvati V. Sundaram & Anr., (2019) 20 SCC 747.
10. Learned counsels have also submitted that earlier one set of
contempt petition was decided and order was passed on
09.04.2019 by this Court initiating contempt proceedings. Against
the said order dated 09.04.2019, State Government preferred
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13791/2019-State of
Rajasthan Vs. Manju Saxena & Ors. and the Supreme Court
dismissed the SLP vide order dated 09.09.2021 issuing directions
which were also required to be followed in the cases of the present
petitioners.
11. We have considered the submissions.
12. We are reminded of the judgment passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and
Others-(1996) 6 SCC 291, wherein three Judges bench of the
Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“6. The question then is whether the Division Bench)
was right in setting aside the direction issued by the
learned single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is
contended by Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes
into the correctness of the decision taken by the
Government in preparation of the seniority list in the
light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned
Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the
respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the
orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the
Act. Therefore, the learned single Judge of the High
Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that
question. We do not find that the contention is well
founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (41 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]had prepared the seniority list on 2.7.1991
Subsequently promotions came to be made. The
question is whether seniority list is open to review in
the contempt proceedings to find out, whether it is in
conformity with the directions issued by the earlier
Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed
by the Government on the basis of the directions issued
by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to
seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation
of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or
may or may not be in conformity with the directions.
But that would be a fresh cause of action for the
aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial
review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful
violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial
review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the
learned single Judge cannot be given to redraw the
seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was
exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on
merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be
permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the
Division Bench has exercised the power under Section
18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a
judgment or order of the single Judge; the Division
Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned
single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the
State to file an appeal in this Court against the
judgment of the learned single Judge when the matter
was already seized of the Division Bench.
7. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. It may be
open to the aggrieved party to assail the correctness of
the seniority list prepared by the State Government, if
it is not in comformity with the directions issued by the
High Court, if they so advised, in an appropriate forum.
No costs.”
12.1.The view taken by the Supreme Court in J.S.Parihar (supra)
has been reiterated in Snehasis Giri Vs. Subhasis Mitra-
(2023) 18 SCC 529. In Snehasis Giri (supra), it was held that
in contempt proceedings of almost like persons, interim orders
were passed on the basis that benefits were not confined and
relief not granted only to the parties to the litigation but that the
directions had the effect of in rem adjudication. The Court,
therefore, directed the respondent contemnors to verify from the
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (42 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
record with respect to entitlement of all the contempt petitioners
but urged that there are express directions of this Court to release
salaries of the contempt petitioners without insisting on verifying
genuineness of their claims. Considering all the aspects, Hon’ble
the Supreme Court has held as under:-
“10. Furthermore, there is merit in the respondents’
submission that the court, in contempt proceeding
cannot enlarge its scope and examine matters which
are not part of its remit, i.e. extent of the direction or
orders contained in the judgement of which contempt is
being alleged. In fact, in the decision in Sudhir
Vasudeva (supra), it was held as follows:
“19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as
this Court to punish for contempt is a special and
rare power available both under the Constitution as
well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a
drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb
the liberty of the individual charged with commission
of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a
sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with
the greatest of care and caution. This is also
necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a
contempt plea involves a process of self-
determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of
the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged.
The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the
four corners of the order which is alleged to have
been flouted or enter into questions that have not
been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the
order violation of which is alleged. Only such
directions which are explicit in a judgment or order
or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into
account for the purpose of consideration as to
whether there has been any disobedience or wilful
violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be
reopened; nor can the plea of equities be
considered. The Courts must also ensure that while
considering a contempt plea the power available to
the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review
or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction
supplemental to what has been already expressed
should be issued by the Court while exercising
jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such
an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions
vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above
principles would appear to be the cumulative
outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely,
Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly[(2002)(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (43 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]5 SCC 352] , V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju
[(2004) 13 SCC 610], Bihar Finance Service House
Construction Coop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam
Goswami [(2008) 5 SCC 339] and Union of India v.
Subedar Devassy PV [(2006) 1 SCC 613].”
11. In the present case too, this court is of the opinion
that the respondents’ stand that without verification of
the petitioners’ appointment and whether the
procedures prescribed were duly followed in respect of
matters such as fulfilling eligibility conditions (essential
qualifications and relevant experience); availability of
vacancy; staff pattern in respect of madrasas where
recognition was granted and if so for what period;
whether the institution was aided and recognized or not
or recognized and non-aided, and if so for what
duration; whether a duly empowered selection body or
bodies considered the candidature of the claimant
before he/she was appointed and whether the
committee or body selecting the individual/claimant
was constituted in accordance with the rules or
guidelines, etc is justified. In these circumstances, this
court is of the opinion that further proceedings cannot
be continued as no determination can be made unless
there is a due verification in regard to the employment
of each of the petitioners.
12. Furthermore, this court, in lawful exercise of
contempt jurisdiction, cannot examine the merits of a
decision, whether the state or the madrasa’s stand that
any of the petitioners is entitled to the benefits of being
treated as an employee, having regard to the
concerned rules and regulations. In J.S. Parihar v.
Ganpat Duggar3 this court explained the limited scope
of contempt proceedings, as follows, in the facts of the
case:
“6. The question then is whether the Division Bench
was right in setting aside the direction issued by the
learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is
contended by Mr S.K. Jain, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned
Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken
by the Government in preparation of the seniority
list in the light of the law laid down by three
Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a
conclusion whether or not the respondent had
wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the
Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (44 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High
Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that
question. We do not find that the contention is well
founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents
had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991.
Subsequently promotions came to be made. The
question is whether seniority list is open to review in
the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in
conformity with the directions issued by the earlier
Benches. It is seen that once there is an order
passed by the Government on the basis of the
directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh
cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate
forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be
wrong or may be right or may or may not be in
conformity with the directions. But that would be a
fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail
of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot
be considered to be the wilful violation of the order.
After re- exercising the judicial review in contempt
proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single
Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In
other words, the learned Judge was exercising the
jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the
contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible
under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division
Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of
the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a
judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division
Bench corrected the mistake committed by the
learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be
necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court
against the judgment of the learned Single Judge
when the matter was already seized of the Division
Bench.”
12.2. The Supreme Court exercising its powers under Article 142
of the Constitution of India, thereafter constituted a Committee to
examine the claims of the petitioners.
13. We noticed that in none of the orders passed by the Court,
the question regarding maintainability of the contempt petition
was examined.
14. It would be apposite to notice the provisions of Section 2 (b)
of Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 (for short ‘ the Act of 1971’):-
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (45 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
“2. Definitions………
(a)————–
(b) “civil contempt” means willful disobedience to
any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other
process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking
given to a court;”
14.1. Section 12 of the Act of 1971 reads as under:-
“12. Punishment for contempt of court.–
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act
or in any other law, a contempt of court may be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to six months, or with fine which may
extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that the accused may be discharged or the
punishment awarded may be remitted on apology
being made to the satisfaction of the court.
Explanation.–An apology shall not be rejected
merely on the ground that it is qualified or
conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, no court shall impose
a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section
(1) for any contempt either in respect of itself or of
a court subordinate to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
section, where a person is found guilty of a civil
contempt, the court, if it considers that a fine will
not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of
imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of
sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that
he be detained in a civil prison for such period not
exceeding six months as it may think fit.
(4) Where the person found guilty of contempt of
court in respect of any undertaking given to a court
is a company, every person who, at the time the
contempt was committed, was in charge of, and was
responsible to, the company for the conduct of
business of the company, as well as the company,
shall be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and
the punishment may be enforced, with the leave of
the court, by the detention in civil prison of each
such person:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section
shall render any such person liable to such
punishment if he proves that the contempt was
committed without his knowledge or that he(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (46 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]exercised all due diligence to prevent its
commission.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (4), where the contempt of court referred to
therein has been committed by a company and it is
proved that the contempt has been committed with
the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to
any neglect on the part of, any director, manager,
secretary or other officer of the company, such
director, manager, secretary or other officer shall
also be deemed to be guilty of the contempt and the
punishment may be enforced, with the leave of the
court, by the detention in civil prison of such
director, manager, secretary or other officer.
Explanation.–For the purposes of sub-sections (4)
and (5),_
(a) “company” means any body corporate and
includes a firm or other association of individuals;
and
(b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner
in the firm.”
14.2. Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed the law as laid down in J.S.
Parihar (supra) and Snehasis Giris (supra).
15. The petitioners’ contention of the judgment in the case of
Bhagwan Das Todi (supra) being in rem and, therefore, no
separate petition/application would require to be filed is found to
be misconceived. The claims of the contempt petitioners are based
upon separate set of fact with regard to the period of
engagement, the institutes are different, the question as to when
the employee was posted on the aided post and what aid was
being received against their posts are all facts for which, finding is
required to be given in each individual case. Such findings cannot
be given in contempt proceedings. No reply can be received on
facts in contempt proceedings. The nature of their
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (47 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
termination/retirement/disengagement from such institution would
also be looked into.
16. A close reading of the concluding para of the judgment
passed in Bhagwan Das Todi’ (supra), clearly shows that the
Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the said judgment is not
confined to the employees therein but also applies to several other
employees who have either filed the writ petition or raised
objections before the learned Tribunal. In the said context the
Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the principle laid down in the
said case would also be applicable in case of other similarly
situated persons. The ‘term similarly situated’ used in the said
para cannot be read in isolation but the same is required to be
read in the context, which clearly shows that the intention of the
Hon’ble Division Bench is to make the principle laid down in the
said case applicable also with regard to the petitioners who have
already raised their grievance and submitted their independent
claims before this Hon’ble Court or before the learned Tribunal.
The intention of the Hon’ble Division Bench emerging of the said
judgment read in its entirety is very clear that although the
individual employee was required to establish their entitlement
with regard to the benefits arising from their services rendered in
the aided institution, however the said entitlement was to be
adjudicated in view of the principles laid down in the case of
Bhagwan Das Todi’ (supra). In our opinion the contempt
petitioners have misconstrued the intention of the Hon’ble Division
Bench and without first getting their entitlement / claim
independently adjudicated before this Hon’ble Court or before the
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (48 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
learned Tribunal have straightway proceeded to file the contempt
petition before this Hon’ble Division Bench meaning thereby the
contempt of Court is alleged without there being any adjudication
of their independent entitlement, which is not permissible in the
eye of law.
16.1. We have also noticed that in respect of most of the
contempt petitioners, the compliance / compliance in part has
already been made, however, looking to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the individual cases, some benefits have not
been extended to some of the contempt petitioners; which in our
view, this gives rise to a separate cause of action to the
petitioners, however they have contended that the complete
compliance of the judgment passed in the case of Bhagwan Das
Todi’ (supra) has not been made.
17. It is reiterated that the scope of interference by this Court in
contempt proceedings are very limited and the fresh adjudication
of the claims of the contempt petitioners with regard to the part of
benefits not allowed by the State Government / Educational
Institution looking to their peculiar facts cannot be done in the
contempt proceedings. Since the respondents herein have
considered the claim of the contempt petitioners and have already
passed respective orders in the individual cases. The grievance, if
any, left can be adjudicated before the appropriate authority /
Court / Tribunal, however the same would not amount to wilful
and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Hon’ble
Court and, therefore, also the present contempt proceedings are
not maintainable.
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31764-DB] (49 of 49) [CCP-1666/2018]
18. We are also aware of the limited power of the Court while
deciding the contempt proceedings and we refrain from enlarging
the scope of contempt petition, especially when there is an
availability of statutory forum of Rajasthan Non-Government
Educational Institutional Tribunal (for short ‘ the Tribunal’), which
is competent to examine the claim of the individuals and pass
orders relying upon the orders passed in the case of Bhagwan
Das Todi (supra). The directions issued by the Tribunal are akin
to a decree passed by the civil Court and is executable in terms of
Section 27 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational
Institutions Act, 1989.
19. We, therefore, find that there is no deliberate or willful non-
compliance of Court’s order on behalf of the respondents. The
contempt petitions are wholly misconceived and the same are
accordingly, dismissed.
20. No costs.
21. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Naval Gandhi
(Downloaded on 22/08/2025 at 11:53:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)