[2026:RJ-JP:5151] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1119/2024 In Appeal No.1376/2021 1. Prabhu Narain Sharma S/o Shri Sitaram Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 55, Choudhary Nagar II, Airport Road, Budhpura, Jaipur. 2. Yashodhan Pal Singh S/o Shri Nepal Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Plot No.6, Kalyan Nagar III, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Nihal Singh S/o Shri Ummed Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o A-14, Bidawat Marg, Ambabari, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o M 6/439, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Shri Anand Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Shri Utkal Ranjan Sahu, Director General Of Police Rajasthan, Jaipur 3. Shri Bhaskar A. Sawant, Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Shri Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Director General Of Police Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Jaiman, Adv. with Mr. Keshav Parashar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Adv. with Ms. Almas Khanam, Adv. for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order [2026:RJ-JP:5151] (2 of 3) [CCP-1119/2024] 04/02/2026 1. This contempt petition has been preferred by the petitioners stating that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Authority dated 10.07.2023. It is contended that the order passed by the Department-respondents dated 21.03.2024 amounts to non- compliance of the judgment dated 10.07.2023. It is further contended that in the order, the Department specifically stated that review by Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC') could not be conducted for the year 2000-01 to 2005-06 as record was not available with them. It is argued that the Tribunal directed the respondents that the claim of the petitioners shall be considered for review by DPC from the year 2000-01 to 2005-06 for the post of Sub-Inspector. It is also argued that the respondents did not even determine the vacancies of general candidates from year 2000-01 to 2005-06. It is further argued that previously also the order dated 04.06.2019 was passed by the respondents which is akin to the order dated 21.03.2024, thus, the respondents have committed contempt and liable to be punished. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners claim was duly considered and vide speaking order dated 21.03.2024, the matter was considered. It is also contended that as per the provision of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Rules, 1989, it was imperative for the petitioners to appear and qualify the examination and without succeeding the examination, the petitioners were not entitled for promotion to the post of Sub- inspector. The Department has substantively made the compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal and considered all the aspects, [2026:RJ-JP:5151] (3 of 3) [CCP-1119/2024] and if the petitioners are aggrieved with the order, then instead of filing the contempt petition, they could have approached the appropriate forum for the redressal of their grievance, therefore, the civil contempt petition may be dismissed. 3. Heard and perused the material available on record. 4. The respondents have passed the order dated 21.03.2024 citing the reasons regarding not conducting the review DPC for the year 2000-01 to 2005-06 and also that as per the Rules of 1989, it was imperative upon the petitioners to appear in the qualifying examination and only upon succeeding, they were entitled for promotion from the Post of Assistant Sub-Inspector to Sub- Inspector. The Department have considered all the aspects in order dated 21.03.2024 and cited the reasons for not conducting the review DPC and determination of the vacancies. Thus, I do not find that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The petitioners are free to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance with regard to order dated 21.03.2024. 5. In aforesaid terms, the instant contempt petition stands dismissed, rule is discharged. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-4