Contempt jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to adjudicate the merits of a claim or establish entitlement for parties not originally part of the litigation; such claims must be pursued through appropriate judicial review or statutory forums.

Order

1. In the instant contempt petition, petitioner has alleged disobedience of the final judgment dated 06.11.2015 passed in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 663/2015: State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. The Management Committee Sh. Bhagwan Das Todi College qua petitioner.

2. Indisputably, the petitioner did not file any seperate appeal before the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal or writ petition before the High Court, for adjudication of their dues, and has preferred the contempt petition, alleging disobedience of the directions issued in case of Bhagwan Das Todi (supra).

3. At the outset, counsel for petitioner does not dispute that the issue of disobedience as raised in this contempt petition is squarely covered by the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1666/2018: Dr. Anil Kumar Mathur Vs. Mr. Ashutosh A.T. Pednekar, Commissioner, College Education & Special Secretary and other connected matters, hence, it has been prayed that the contempt petition may also be disposed of in terms of order dated 21.08.2025.

4. We have gone through the order dated 21.08.2025 passed in case of Dr. Anil Kumar Mathur (supra), wherein the Coordinate Bench of this High Court has dismissed the contempt petitions, after following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in cases of J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar & Ors.[(1996) 6 SCC 291] and Snehasis Giri Vs. Subhasis Mitra [(2023) 18 SCC 529]. We deem it apposite to reproduce the relevant part of discussion and findings of the Coordinate Bench as under:

"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:-

“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 question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out, whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on