[2026:RJ-JP:7706] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1054/2024 In SB Civil Writ Petition No. 21372/2017 Seema Kumari Malawat W/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Shantidan Gadhvi, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of K-37, Himmmat Nagar Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Shri Krishna Kant Pathak, Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Basant Singh Chhaba, AAG with Ms. Mahi Chaudhary Mr. Hardik Singh Mr. Sajit Jhakhar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 18/02/2026 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order Annexure CR/1 respondents have flouted the order and not computed the vacancy as per the notification dated 24.01.2011. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the direction of the court, specific order Annexure CR/1 has been passed in accordance to the notification dated 24.01.2011 and petitioner has been intimated. It is also contended that if the [2026:RJ-JP:7706] (2 of 2) [CCP-1054/2024] petitioner is still aggrieved by the order, she may file appropriate application for redressal of her grievance before the competent forum. Heard and perused the material available on the record. Vide order dated 27.04.2023, this court after referring para- 7 of the judgment passed in Suraj Rathore Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Anr in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14710/2017 decided on 18.07.2018, passed following order:- "Instant petition stands disposed of with the same directions as issued in the case of Suraj Rathore (supra) and the respondents are directed to do the needful within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." Pursuant to the order dated 27.04.2023 the respondents have passed an order प.7(2) का቞ኌक /क-4/2/09 Dated 21.08.2023. The petitioner has challenged the Annexure CR/1 on the ground that it is not in accordance with the roster and the computation relating to reservation of vacancies for women is not in accordance with the rules. Be that it may be, the order has been complied with. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the computation of reservation with regard to the divorced women category, the petitioner is free to take necessary action for redressal of her grievance. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of and the contempt notices are discharged. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /25