The High Court of Rajasthan has affirmed that guest faculty appointed under the Vidya Sambal Yojna cannot be arbitrarily terminated pending regular recruitment, establishing a critical safeguard for academic continuity in state-run colleges. This ruling provides immediate relief to over twenty educators and sets a binding precedent for similar cases across Rajasthan.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, all serving as guest faculty members in government colleges across Pali, Sikar, Chittorgarh, Bhilwara, and other districts, were appointed under the Vidya Sambal Yojna - a state scheme launched in 2021 to address chronic vacancies in higher education. With over 60% of sanctioned posts unfilled, the scheme enabled the engagement of experienced teachers on an honorarium basis to ensure uninterrupted instruction. The petitioners, each with several years of continuous service, now face potential termination as the state seeks to reopen appointments for fresh recruitment in each academic session.
Procedural History
- 2021: State of Rajasthan launched Vidya Sambal Yojna to fill vacant teaching posts.
- 2023: Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court ruled in Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. that guest faculties must be retained until replaced by regular appointees.
- 2025: Division Bench of the High Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chaturvedi & Ors., upheld and modified the 2023 order, affirming continued service subject to student enrollment and honorarium rates.
- 2025: Another Division Bench in Dr. Shashi Pandit v. State of Rajasthan referred the matter to a Larger Bench, but explicitly noted the continued enforceability of the Ram Chaturvedi order.
- 2026: Present writ petition filed by 20 guest faculty members seeking continuation of service.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a direction to continue their service until replaced by candidates selected through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), along with maintenance of current honorarium rates and protection from arbitrary termination.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether guest faculty appointed under the Vidya Sambal Yojna are entitled to continued service until replaced by regular appointees, or whether the state may terminate them annually to conduct fresh selection processes.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioners relied on the Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chaturvedi & Ors., arguing that the state’s policy of retaining experienced guest faculty was not merely administrative convenience but a constitutional imperative under Article 21 to ensure educational continuity. They emphasized that abrupt termination disrupts pedagogy, demoralizes students, and violates the principle of reasonable expectation of service. The petitioners also cited Manish Gupta & Ors. v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court held that long-serving contractual employees cannot be dismissed without due process.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Additional Advocate General, contended that guest faculty positions are temporary by design under the Vidya Sambal Yojna, and that annual reappointment is necessary to ensure merit-based selection. They argued that the Ram Chaturvedi judgment was an interim measure and could not override statutory recruitment procedures under RPSC. The State further claimed that continued retention of guest faculty would create a de facto permanent cadre, undermining the principle of competitive recruitment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Ram Chaturvedi judgment as binding precedent and noted that the Division Bench had already balanced the competing interests of educational continuity and recruitment norms. The Court observed that the state had not demonstrated any material change in circumstances to justify departing from its own established policy. The judgment in Manish Gupta was cited to reinforce that long-term service creates legitimate expectations, even in contractual appointments.
"The respondents/original petitioners/applicants are entitled to continue on their respective posts till they are replaced by existing regular employees or regularly selected candidates through RPSC."
The Court emphasized that the state’s obligation under Article 21 to provide quality education outweighs procedural convenience. It rejected the argument that continued service amounts to creating a permanent cadre, noting that continuation is conditional upon student enrollment and subject to replacement upon actual recruitment. The Court also noted that the honorarium rate of ₹800 per hour, previously upheld, remains unchanged and is not a matter of dispute.
The referral to a Larger Bench does not invalidate the existing order; it merely suspends further expansion. The enforceability of Ram Chaturvedi remains intact until superseded by a binding decision of a larger bench.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that guest faculty under the Vidya Sambal Yojna are entitled to continue in service until replaced by regular appointees selected through RPSC, subject to student enrollment and existing honorarium rates. The order in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. was applied directly, and all pending applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Continuity Is Not a Privilege, But a Right
- Practitioners representing guest faculty must now assert reasonable expectation of service as a constitutional right under Article 21, not merely as administrative grace.
- Termination without notice or opportunity to be heard, even for contractual roles, may now be challenged as arbitrary under Article 14.
- Colleges cannot unilaterally terminate faculty mid-academic year on grounds of "annual review" if the state policy permits continuity.
Recruitment Cannot Displace Existing Service
- The state cannot use the prospect of future recruitment as grounds to terminate current service; replacement must be actual, not hypothetical.
- RPSC recruitment timelines do not override the duty to maintain educational continuity.
- Institutions must maintain records of student enrollment to justify continuation - this becomes a key evidentiary requirement in future disputes.
Honorarium Rates Are Protected Until Revised
- Any attempt to reduce honorarium rates without formal notification or consultation may be challenged as violative of promissory estoppel.
- The ₹800/hour rate, as fixed in Ram Chaturvedi, remains binding until officially modified by the state through a transparent policy change.
