[2026:RJ-JP:4702]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 516/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3590/2025 Gopal Singh Bijarniya S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Bijarniya, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Vijay Nagar, Palsana, Police Station Ranoli, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Mr. Sudhanshu Pant, Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Mr. Brijendra Jain, Principal Secretary Law, Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Mr. Anand Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. Mr. Mukul Sharma, The Collector And District Magistrate, Sikar, District Sikar.

5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi, Adv. for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG Ms. Tanvisha Pant, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

02/02/2026

1. The present civil contempt petition has been filed against the order dated 25.03.2025, whereby certain directions were issued in para No.10.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that despite the aforesaid directions, the petitioner was removed from the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Sikar and the Principal Law Secretary has acted in violation of the Court’s order.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the contention referred in Para-4 of the judgment, whereby, it was specifically contended as under:-

" It is has been pointed out that bare perusal of order dated 05.08.2024, prima facie indicates that Government of Rajasthan took a decision to continue all Public Prosecutors/ Additional Public Prosecutors/ Special Public Prosecutors to appear for and on behalf of Government of Rajasthan in the respective District & Sessions Courts, Additional District & Sessions Courts and Special Courts, despite completion of their terms of appointment on or before 31.07.2024, fundamentally, for the reason that new appointments of Government Advocates-Cum-PPs/ APPs/SPPs in place of previously appointed panel of advocates, were not made; buy the Government, instead of appointment new Government Advocate-cum-APP in place of petitioner, has relieved the petitioner and other similarly situated Government Advocates under the impugned orders dated 28.02.2025, and charge of petitioner has been handed over additionally to the APP No.3, Sikar. Thus, apparently the orders impugned dated 28.02.2025 run contrary to the order of extension dated 05.08.2024."

It is further contended that in view of the said contentions made in Para-4, the aforesaid directions were issued, thereafter, new appointments of Government Advocate-cum-Public Prosecutors/Assistant Public Prosecutors/ Special Public Prosecutors in place of the previously appointed panel of Advocates were made. The respondents were not precluded by the impugned order to appoint fresh Advocates-cum-Public Prosecutors/Assistant Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors, however, it is contended that there is no willful non- compliance of the said order, rather on administrative contingency and subject to completion of terms of appointment of the petitioner, the appointments of Public Prosecutors were made, therefore, the contempt petition deserves dismissal.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. The aforesaid order was passed on the basis of contentions made at Para-4, which specifically pointed out that the petitioner's term of appointment was going to expire on 31.07.2024 and when the order was passed, no such fresh appointment were made. It is not denied that the petitioner's term was expired on 31.07.2024 and thereafter, he continued to work till fresh orders of appointment were made, therefore, in the