[2025:RJ-JP:40074] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 431/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20987 of 2018 Ashutosh Vashisth S/o Sh. Kunj Bihari Vashisth, Aged About 36 Years, R/o V.P.O. Kemla, Tehsil Nadoti, Distt. Karauli, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Mr. Krishna Kunal, I.A.S. Secretary, Department of Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Mr. Sita Ram Jat, I.A.S. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner 3. State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Department of Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav learned AAG with Mr. Jitendra Kumar Takar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 26/09/2025 1. The instant contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging non-complying with the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 20987/2018. 2. Heard. [2025:RJ-JP:40074] (2 of 4) [CCP-431/2025] 3. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel appearing for the respondents/ contemnors. 4. Vide order dated 20.09.2024, the Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in view of the judgment given on 10.08.2018 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Bharti Upadhayay Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1122/2017). 5. In the case of Bharti Upadhayay (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur has observed as under:- “Accordingly, the present special appeal is allowed. The Order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. We direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III after treating her as having obtained the requisite qualifying marks in the Senior Secondary Examination, in case, she is otherwise eligible. The needful be done within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order.” 6. Counsel appearing for the respondents / contemnors submits that in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Bharti Upadhayay (supra), the respondents / contemnors have considered the case of the petitioner extending relaxation as ordered by the Hon’ble Division Bench but since the petitioner was not fulfilling the other [2025:RJ-JP:40074] (3 of 4) [CCP-431/2025] eligibility criteria that he is supposed to have secured minimum 50% marks in the Graduation or equivalent examination, found him ineligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III, they rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing a detailed consideration and reasoned order dated 25.09.2025. The order dated 25.09.2025 has been placed before the Court by the respondents/ contemnors, which is taken on record. 7. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharti Upadhayay (supra) has specifically held that the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III after treating him as having obtained the requisite qualifying marks in the Senior Secondary Examination, in case he is otherwise eligible. The respondents /contemnors while passing the order dated 25.09.2025 has observed that treating the petitioner as having obtained the requisite qualifying marks in the Senior Secondary Examination, he was not found to fulfill other eligibility criteria particularly that he has not secured the minimum 50% marks in the Graduation or equivalent course as is required under the Provisions, Rules and the Notifications. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the respondents / contemnors have made substantial compliance of the directions issued by the Court and the [2025:RJ-JP:40074] (4 of 4) [CCP-431/2025] contempt petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the contempt petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. The notices, if any, issued to the respondents / contemnors, stand discharged. 10. However, if the petitioner has any grievance, he shall be at liberty to challenge the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the respondents / contemnors with regard to rejecting his candidature. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK-Dy. Registrar/19