##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:4026-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1347/2019

In

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 2016/2018

In

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 663/2025

Nirmala Runthla W/o Late Shri G.R. Runthala, Aged About 59

Years, Resident Of Near Dalmiya School, Station Road, Chidawa,

District Jhunjhunu (Raj)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Higher

Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Shri Vaibhav Galriya, Principal Secretary, Higher Education

Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2/1. Dr. Arushi Ajey Malik, Principal Secretary, Higher

Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Dr. Om Prakash Bairwa, Commissioner, College Education,

Rajasthan, Srk Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur.

4. Shri A.k. Mohanti, Secretary, Management Committee,

Chirawa College, Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu

5. Dr. Richa Kulshresth, Principal, Chirawa College, Chirawa,

Distt. Jhunjhunu

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad

Mr. Iliyas Khan

For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with

Ms. Shikha Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

29/01/2026

1. Petitioner’s husband-Late Shri G.R. Runthala was stated to be

a Lecturer in private aided College viz. Chidawa College, District

Jhunjhunu and after his death, petitioner preferred this contempt

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 11:58:45 AM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 05:45:41 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4026-DB] (2 of 13) [CCP-1347/2019]

petition alleging disobedience of the directions in rem issued in

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 663/2015: State of

Rajasthan & Anr. v. The Management Committee Sh.

Bhagwan Das Todi College & two other connected appeals

decided on 06.11.2015.

2. Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that no

independent and separate appeal or petition, in respect of not

granting benefits to deceased- Late Shri G.R. Runthala in terms of

directions issued under Bhagwan Das Todi (supra), was ever

instituted and the contempt petition has been filed directly,

alleging disobedience of such directions qua Late Shri G.R.

Runthala.

3. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties, both the

counsels do not dispute that the identical issue, which has arisen

in this contempt petition, has already been dealt with in detail by

the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of D.B. Civil Contempt

Petition No. 1666/2018: Dr. Anil Kumar Mathur and ors. Vs.

Mr. Ashutosh A.T. Pednekar and ors. and other connected

matters, decided vide judgment dated 21.08.2025 and the present

contempt petition may also be disposed of in terms of the

judgment dated 21.08.2025.

4. For ready reference, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the

relevant portion of the judgment dated 21.08.2025:

“12. We are reminded of the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in the case of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat

Duggar and Others-(1996) 6 SCC 291, wherein three

Judges bench of the Supreme Court has observed as

under:-

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 11:58:45 AM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 05:45:41 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4026-DB] (3 of 13) [CCP-1347/2019]

“6. The question then is whether the Division

Bench) was right in setting aside the direction

issued by the learned single Judge to redraw the

seniority list. It is contended by Mr. S.K. Jain,

learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that

unless the learned Judge goes into the

correctness of the decision taken by the

Government in preparation of the seniority list in

the light of the law laid down by three Benches,

the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion

whether or not the respondent had wilfully or

deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as

defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore,

the learned single Judge of the High Court

necessarily has to go into the merits of that

question. We do not find that the contention is

well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the

respondents had prepared the seniority list on

2.7.1991 Subsequently promotions came to be

made. The questio