JUDGMENT : 1. This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by this Court whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of in the light of judgment dated 19.02.2020 passed by this Court in case of Sunita & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.838/2020. 2. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that compliance qua the petitioner no.2, Ashok Singh Gurjar has been made and he presses the contempt petition qua the petitioner no.1-Smt. Vinita Kumari. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, inviting attention of this Court towards the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Annexure-R-1) appended with the reply, would submit that in pursuance of direction of this Court, candidature of the petitioner no.1 was considered in the light of experience certificate furnished by her; but, she was not found eligible for appointment. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although, the petitioner no.1, Smt. Vinita Kumari and the petitioner no.2, Ashok Singh Gurjar are having identical experience certificates; but, the respondents while, extending appointment to the petitioner no.2, have denied the same to the petitioner no.1 putting her to hostile discrimination. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be directed to purge the contempt and they may also be punished suitably. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. This Court has, vide order dated 08.02.2021, contempt whereof is alleged, disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioners in the light of judgment in case of Sunita & Ors. (supra) wherein, the petitioners were held entitled to be given benefit of bonus marks on the basis of their experience certificates for the respective post. However, the respondents were extended liberty to consider the experience certificate and if the same was found to be in order, to award bonus marks to the petitioners. Thus, the direction to award bonus marks on the basis of experience certificate was not absolute; but, was subject to its verification. A perusal of the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the respondents reveals that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner no.1 was not found to be in order to justify award of bonus marks. Thus, the direction to award bonus marks on the basis of experience certificate was not absolute; but, was subject to its verification. A perusal of the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the respondents reveals that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner no.1 was not found to be in order to justify award of bonus marks. In view of the well settled legal principle, in its contempt jurisdiction, this Court is not expected to examine the legality and validity of the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the respondents in pursuance of direction issued by this Court qua the issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 has been subjected to hostile discrimination. 7. Their Lordships have succinctly explained the scope of contempt jurisdiction in case of Midnapore Peoples’ Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. versus Chunilal Nanda & Ors.: AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2190 as under:- “10.5 J. S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar (supra) is nearest to this case, on facts. A contempt petition was filed alleging that the seniority list drawn pursuant to the order of the High Court was not in conformity with the said order. The High Court found it to be so, but held that the disobedience was not willful and, therefore, did not punish for contempt. But the High Court gave a direction to redraw the seniority list. The State Government challenged the said direction in an intra court appeal. The Division Bench held that the appeal was not maintainable under section 19 of the CC Act, but was maintainable as an intra-court appeal as the direction issued by the single Judge would be a "judgment" within the meaning of that expression in section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge to re-do the list. The said order was challenged before this Court. This Court confirmed the decision of the Division Bench and held as follows : "Therefore, an appeal would lie under section 19 when an order in exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court punishing the contemnor has been passed. In this case, the finding was that the respondents had not wilfully disobeyed the order. So there is no order punishing the respondent for violation of the orders of the High Court. Accordingly, an appeal under section 19 would not lie. In this case, the finding was that the respondents had not wilfully disobeyed the order. So there is no order punishing the respondent for violation of the orders of the High Court. Accordingly, an appeal under section 19 would not lie. 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 act on 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, a fresh 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 merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible....” 11 (IV). Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and therefore, not appealable under section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. 11 (V). If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases). The first point is answered accordingly. Re : Point No. (ii) : 21. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases). The first point is answered accordingly. Re : Point No. (ii) : 21. There was also no justification for the further direction by the learned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings, that too by an interlocutory order, that the complainant should immediately and forthwith be reinstated into the service of the Bank, and shall be deemed to be in the service of the Bank all through, that the employee shall not be prevented in any manner from discharging his duties and that he shall be paid all arrears of salary within four weeks, and that the suspension order shall be deemed to have been revoked. These were totally outside the scope of the proceedings for contempt and amounted to adjudication of rights and liabilities not in issue in the contempt proceedings. At all events, on the facts and circumstances, there was no disobedience, breach or neglect on the part of the Bank and its President and Secretary, to provoke the court to issue such directions, even assuming that such directions could be issued in the course of the contempt proceedings. Hence, directions (2) and (3) and the direction relating to revocation of suspension are liable to be set aside. Re : SLP (C) Nos.13045-46/2003” 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid presidential law, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not merit acceptance. 9. Resultantly, this contempt petition is dismissed. 10. Notices are discharged.