1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION No.40/2007. IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.8033/2002. : : Rakesh Kumar Verma Vs. Ms.Malovika Panwar & Ors. : : Date of Order 11.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.N.S.Chauhan for Mr.R.D.Rastogi for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjeev Sogarwal for Mr.G.S.Gill, AAG. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the judgment dated 4.8.2006 passed by this Court. By the judgment aforesaid whereby writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of P.T.I. Grade-II against the vacancy of year 1998-99 as per his merit. The respondents in reply have come out with the plea that case of the petitioner was considered, but he did not come within the merit, therefore, he could not be appointed. Number of affidavits and counter affidavits have been filed by the parties i.e. by the respondents on the 2 question of what was the criteria for preparing merit list and on the other hand, by the petitioner alleging that the respondents have adopted different criteria for preparing the merit of the petitioner because they are biased against him. The respondents have produced copy of the circular dated 6.8.1998 showing that merit of the applicant was determined by giving weightage of 75% to graduation and 25% to B.Ed./ B.P.Ed/B.S.T.C. But the petitioner has asserted that the merit inn the case of other candidates was prepared while giving 100% weightage to professional qualification of B.P.E. and to other qualifications. Determination of this contentious question requires consideration. Such an issue cannot be examined in the scope of contempt petition because what was directed was consideration of the case of the petitioner, which having been done, respondents cannot be held guilty of willful contempt of the order by disobeying the order of this Court. In the facts of the case, however the remedy of the petitioner would lay in filing a fresh petition. In the result, this contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed with the aforesaid observations. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.14. 3