JUDGMENT 1. :- Heard. 2. Both these Special Appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in SB Civil Contempt Petition No. 273/1995 decided on August 8, 1995. 3. The non-petitioner Keshari Singh, and others filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5837/1992 which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on February 1, 1993 [Judgment reported in 1993 (2) RLR 155] and the following order was passed: "Consequently, I allow the writ petitions and direct the respondent i.e. the State of Rajasthan to re-convene the D.P.C. within 15 days from today and to consider the petitioners for promotion to supertime scale of R.A.S. against the vacancies of the year 1992-93, provided they fall within the zone of consideration and to promote them on the said post, in case they are found suitable. In case the DPC has already considered the cases of the petitioners for promotion to supertime scale the respondent is directed to declare the result of DPC and to pass necessary orders." Against the aforesaid judgment two DB Special Appeals were filed being DB Civil Special Appeal Nos. 59/1993 and 60/1993. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated April 2, 1993 [reported in 1993 (1) RLR 277], allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and order. 4. Against the order of Division Bench of this Court Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided the SLPs on April 20, 1995 and passed the following order: "In the result, these appeals succeed. The decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is restored. The benefit of this interpretation will be worked out by the concerned Governments so far as the appellants are concerned but so far as the private respondent is concerned, he has since been inducted into the All India Services and, therefore, he is not likely to be affected any more. The appeals will stand allowed accordingly with no order as to costs." The non-petitioner felt aggrieved as the directions given by the Supreme Court were not complied with. Hence Shri Keshri Singh, non-petitioner herein, filed SB Civil Contempt Petition No. 273 of 1995. The appeals will stand allowed accordingly with no order as to costs." The non-petitioner felt aggrieved as the directions given by the Supreme Court were not complied with. Hence Shri Keshri Singh, non-petitioner herein, filed SB Civil Contempt Petition No. 273 of 1995. The learned Single Judge discussed the points urged before him and he took into consideration the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State Government of Rajasthan and passed the following order: "Under these circumstances, the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India, New Delhi, is directed to take steps for reviewing the proceedings of Selection Board for promotion to I.A.S. from State service held in October, 1993, in relation to Shri Keshri Singh and Shri K.P. Singhal, in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court and only thereafter operate the Select List prepared in January 1995. The Secretary is expected to take immediate steps. The non-petitioners are directed to convey the decision of this Court to the Secretary. Notice issued to the non-petitioners is discharged. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training Govt. of India New Delhi." It is against the aforesaid order that these appeals purporting to be the appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, are filed. 5. It is an undisputed position that these appeals are not under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This is so because there is no order of punishment for contempt of court. 6. The contention is that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is a judgment within the meaning of expression 'occurring' under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. The contention cannot be accepted. The learned Single Judge has given direction to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court. Maybe, while giving this direction, as contended by the learned advocates appearing for the appellants, he might have exceeded his jurisdiction and might have given directions which may not be permissible, having regard to the limitations of the proceedings before him, but this is not the question which could be gone into by this Court. The remedy of the appellants is not by way of appeals before this Court. The remedy of the appellants is not by way of appeals before this Court. In our opinion, the direction given by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be the judgment. It cannot be said that the rights and obligations of the parties are finally determined. In fact there was no question of determination of rights of the parties before the learned Single Judge. In course of giving the direction for the purposes of saying that the judgment and order passed by the Apex Court is to be complied with even if any erroneous direction is given, it cannot be said to be a judgment within the meaning of expression 'occurring' in Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. 7. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Md. Nurul Absar, Administrator, Old Malda Municipality, Malda Vs. Sukumar Poddar and others, reported in 1988 Cri. L. J. 797, is of no help to the appellants. It was a decision in which question arose as regards the breach of undertaking given in the Court and the question was as to whether an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was maintainable or not. No such question arises in these proceedings. 8. In view of the aforesaid position, the appeals are not maintainable before this Court. In the result both these appeals are rejected as not maintainable. Notice is discharged.Spl. appeals rejected as not maintainable. *******