[2025:RJ-JP:39590] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 992/2024 Smt. Rajni Kumari W/o Naresh Kumar Kanwaria Father/o Naresh Kumar Kanwaria, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Boyatwala, Panchayat Samiti Jhotwara, District Jaipur (Rajasthan), Presently Working On The Post Of Teacher Grade-Iii (Level-Ii) At Govern- ment Senior Secondary School Narana, Tehsil Devgarh, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Naveen Jain, Ias, Additional Chief Secretary, Depart- ment Of School Education And Bhasha, Secretariat, Ra- jasthan, Jaipur 2. Shri Sitaram Jat, Director, Elementary Education And Pan- chayati Raj, Elementary Education Department, Ra- jasthan, Bikaner 3. Shri Nutan Prakash Joshi, The District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Rajsamand 4. Shri Sunil Singhal, The District Education Officer, Sec- ondary Education, Jaipur 5. Shri Parsadi Lal Meena, Panchayat Elementary Education Officer Cum Principal, Government Senior Secondary School Narana, Panchayat Samiti Devgarh, District Ra- jsamand 6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of School Education And Bhasha, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satya Pal Chandoliya For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 25/09/2025 1. Application No. 1/2025 is filed by the petitioner for early list- ing of this contempt petition. [2025:RJ-JP:39590] (2 of 2) [CCP-992/2024] 2. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The matter is heard today itself. 3. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleg- ing non-compliance of order dated 25.07.2024. 4. By order dated 25.07.2024, the petitioner was allowed lib- erty to make representation within a period of one month and the respondent authorities were expected to hear and decide the same on merits as early as possible. 5. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the representation of the petitioner has been decided by the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Ra- jasthan) vide order dated 15.01.2025, but the issues raised in the representation have not been considered. 6. The Court, vide order dated 25.07.2024, had directed the re- spondent authorities to consider the decide the representation of the petitioner. Once the respondent authorities have decided the representation of the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that the respondent authorities have complied with the directions of is- sued by the Court. 7. Accordingly, this contempt petition is disposed of. 8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the rem- edy available to her under law if she has any grievance as regards the decision of the respondent authorities. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava/Satyendra /234