JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This Civil Contempt Petition has been filed, for the alleged respondents-contemnors to be punished, and for taking appropriate action against them for non-compliance and willful disobedience of the directions given by this Court in the order dated 09.07.2014 in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5108/1998 [All Raj. Agriculture Supervisor vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]. 3. It is submitted that the Division Bench found that the issues involved are covered by the judgment and order dated 30.04.2014 rendered by a Division Bench of the Court at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur in a batch of appeals, led by D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.463/2005 [State of Rajasthan & another vs. Bajrang Singh Rathore & others]. 4. In State of Rajasthan & another vs. Bajrang Singh Rathore (supra), connected with two other Special Appeals, vide the judgment dated 30.04.2014, the Division Bench held as follows: “After carefully examining the points in issue and after perusing the impugned orders and scrutinizing the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that once the private respondents were granted the benefit of selection grade in the year 1989, taking into consideration their eligibility for promotion on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, the said benefit cannot be withdrawn or taken away on the basis of an amendment made in the year 1991 in the respective rules. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.R. Kapur and Others Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 584 has held, as under:- It is well-settled that the power to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with a retrospective effect: B.S. Vadhera vs. Union of India, Raj Kumar vs. Union of India, K. Nagaraj & Ors. vs. State of A.P. & Anr., and State Of J & K vs. Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors. It is equally well-settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to lay down qualifications for promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications. It is equally well-settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to lay down qualifications for promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications. The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This rule is however subject to a well-recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Art. 309 which affects or impairs vested rights. Therefore, unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules, cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. In other words, such rules laying down qualifications for promotion made with retrospective effect must necessary satisfy the tests of Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution:” (Emphasis supplied)” 5. In the operative portion of the judgment, the Division Bench held that it has not been persuaded to take a different view as expressed by learned Single Judge in the impugned order, and hence finding no merit in the appeals, the same were dismissed. 6. We have perused the judgments of learned Single Judge, with which the Division Bench had agreed. The Courts did not give any such directions that the selection grade should be given to the petitioners despite the fact that the qualifications for the promotional posts, was amended, and that the suitability criteria for promotions was changed. 7. Learned Single Judge in the judgment, which was upheld by the Division Bench, held that once the private respondents were granted the benefit of selection grade in the year 1989, taking into consideration their eligibility for promotion on the post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, the said benefit could not be withdrawn or taken away on the basis of amendment made in 1981 in respect of Rules. 8. We do not find that any such direction was given, which may entitle the petitioners, to be given the selection grade after the judgment despite the change in eligibility conditions. 8. We do not find that any such direction was given, which may entitle the petitioners, to be given the selection grade after the judgment despite the change in eligibility conditions. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge, were confined to the withdrawal of the benefit, and not for grant of any benefits in future. The respondents were required to take any positive steps for granting any benefits to the petitioner, and thus we are of the view that no case is made out to issue notice in the contempt petition. 9. The contempt petition is dismissed.