[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naveen Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13939) on 24 March, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:13939]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1242/2022
1. Naveen Kumar S/o Shri Banwarilal, Aged About 38 Years,
Category SC, R/o Ward No. 24, Vinoba Floor Mills,
Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).
2. Arur Singh S/o Shri Kakka Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
Category OBC, R/o Village Sadakwala, Tehsil Suratgarh,
District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
3. Omprakash Mahar S/o Shri Rampratap Mahar, Aged About
41 Years, Category OBC, R/o Vpo Birmana, Tehsil
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
4. Shishpal S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 40 Years,
Category OBC, R/o Village 1 Dbn-A (34 Mod)Tehsil
Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
5. Sohan Singh S/o Shri Darshan Singh, Aged About 32
Years, Category OBC, R/o Vpo Nirwana, Tehsil Suratgarh,
District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Shri Ravi Jain, Secretary, Department Of Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Mridul Singh, The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad
Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria with
Mr. Deepak Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG with
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
24/03/2026
1. As per the compliance report filed on 25.02.2026, petitioner
Nos.2 to 5 did not fall in merit even after awarding of bonus
marks.
2. In view of the above, the present contempt petition is
dismissed qua petitioner Nos.2 to 5.
3. So far as petitioner No.1 Naveen Kumar is concerned, an
additional compliance report has been filed by learned Additional
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:46:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13939] (2 of 3) [WCP-1242/2022]
Advocate General. Order dated 04.03.2026 has been annexed with
the said compliance report vide which he has been afforded
appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk.
4. Learned AAG submits that orders of the Court have been
complied with.
5. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order
dated 08.01.2020, the petitioner was directed to be granted
appointment forthwith. But the appointment has been granted
now in the year 2026 and that too only after the present contempt
petition been filed by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner
cannot be deprived of his consequential reliefs/rights because of
the delay on part of the respondent Department.
6. Heard the Counsels. Perused the compliance report.
7. Vide order dated 08.01.2020, the Court directed as under:
"17. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The
respondents are directed to count the period from
01.03.2010 to 03.11.2011 as experience for the
purpose of awarding bonus marks to the petitioners.
18. Needless to observe that after considering the
above referred period for experience and accordingly
calculating petitioners' bonus marks in case
petitioner(s) fall in merit list, they shall be forthwith
given appointment, in accordance with law."
8. A bare perusal of the above order reflects that the
respondents were directed to award the bonus marks to the
petitioners and if after calculating the said bonus marks, they
were found to fall in merit, they were directed to be given
appointment forthwith in accordance with law.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:46:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13939] (3 of 3) [WCP-1242/2022]
9. Admittedly, order dated 08.01.2020 has been sought to be
complied with vide order dated 04.03.2026. The petitioner
definitely cannot be deprived of any of his rights which would had
accrued in his favour had he been granted the appointment at that
point of time.
10. But then order dated 08.01.2020 does not talk of any
consequential benefits. In that view, this Court, in contempt
jurisdiction, cannot enlarge scope of the relief to be granted to the
petitioner. The petitioner, if aggrieved of the non-grant of
consequential benefits, definitely would be required to pursue the
litigation vide a fresh writ petition. No direction/order for awarding
of the consequential benefits can be granted by this Court in
contempt jurisdiction.
11. As is the settled position of law, the Court sitting in a limited
jurisdiction, viz., to examine as to whether orders passed by the
Court have been complied with or not, would not act as an
Appellate Court and re-examine the correctness or otherwise of
the orders passed by the Court. Those aspects would be outside
the scope of contempt proceedings.(Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs
Vs. S.V. Ranganath; 2025 INSC 762)
12. As the compliance of order dated 08.01.2020 has now been
made, this Court is not inclined to proceed further with the
contempt petition and the same is hence disposed of.
13. Rule stands discharged.
(REKHA BORANA),J
126-Arvind/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:46:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
