The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that contractual assistant professors appointed without formal recruitment through RPSC are entitled to continue in their posts until replaced by regularly selected candidates, provided student enrollment justifies their continuation. This ruling clarifies the legal status of thousands of non-regular faculty across state colleges and sets a binding precedent for similar cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners are 28 contractual assistant professors employed in various government colleges across Rajasthan, including Deeg, Dholpur, Bhilwara, Alwar, Bikaner, and Jaipur. They were appointed on a contractual or ad-hoc basis to teach subjects such as Political Science, Hindi, Geography, History, Urdu, Sanskrit, and Botany. None were recruited through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) but were engaged due to acute faculty shortages. Their appointments were renewed annually or on a semester basis, with no formal regularization process initiated by the state.
Key Facts
- All petitioners have been continuously employed since periods ranging from 2010 to 2020
- They are currently teaching in government colleges under the Department of College Education, Government of Rajasthan
- Their appointments were made without competitive selection by RPSC, in violation of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan State Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1951
- They receive honorarium at Rs. 800 per hour, as per prevailing state policy
- No formal recruitment process has been initiated for their posts despite repeated representations
- The state has not filled these positions through RPSC despite vacancies existing for over a decade
- The petitioners have no job security, no pension benefits, and no promotion avenues
Procedural History
- 2023: Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 903/2023) filed before the Rajasthan High Court by similarly situated faculty
- 23.08.2023: Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that contractual appointments without RPSC recruitment are illegal
- 19.09.2025: Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court reversed the Single Judge’s order and issued a landmark order
- 05.01.2026: Present writ petition (C.W. No. 7599/2026) filed by 28 additional contractual faculty seeking identical relief
- 24.04.2026: Hearing concluded before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Munnuri Laxman
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Continuation in their respective posts until replaced by regular RPSC-recruited candidates
- Maintenance of current honorarium rate of Rs. 800 per hour or as revised by the state
- Clarification that their service shall not be terminated merely due to lack of formal recruitment
- Direction to the state to initiate RPSC recruitment for vacant posts within a stipulated time
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners: Counsel argued that the petitioners have been performing essential teaching duties for over a decade, often in remote areas with no alternative faculty. Their continued service is in public interest. The Division Bench’s order in Ram Chaturvedi is directly applicable and binding. Denial of continuation would disrupt education and violate principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation.
For the Respondents: The state did not file a detailed counter-affidavit. The Advocate General’s office appeared generally and submitted that the matter is governed by the Division Bench’s earlier order in Ram Chaturvedi, and no fresh submissions were required.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought continuation in their posts until replaced by regular RPSC-recruited candidates, maintenance of honorarium at Rs. 800 per hour, and direction to the state to initiate RPSC recruitment for vacant posts.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether contractual assistant professors, appointed without RPSC recruitment but employed continuously for over a decade, are entitled to continue in their posts until replaced by regular recruits, and whether the Division Bench’s earlier order in Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan is binding on the present petitioners.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the Division Bench’s order dated 19.09.2025 in Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 903/2023), which held that:
"The respondents/original petitioners/applicants are entitled to continue on the irrespective posts till they are replaced by existing regular employees or regularly selected candidates through RPSC."
It was argued that the factual matrix in the present case is identical: long-term service, absence of RPSC recruitment, public interest in uninterrupted education, and no alternative remedy. The principle of stare decisis mandates application of the same relief. The petitioners also invoked Manish Gupta & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (2023) to reinforce that public interest outweighs procedural irregularities in educational service.
For the Respondent
The state did not file a substantive counter. The Advocate General merely acknowledged the binding nature of the Ram Chaturvedi order and conceded that no fresh arguments were necessary. No objection was raised to the applicability of the earlier judgment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the present petitioners are in the same position as those in Ram Chaturvedi. The factual matrix - duration of service, nature of posts, absence of RPSC recruitment, and public interest in continuity of education - is indistinguishable. The Division Bench’s order dated 19.09.2025 was not an isolated ruling but a principled interpretation of the state’s obligation to ensure educational continuity despite procedural lapses.
"After carefully considering the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manish Gupta & Ors. (supra), we deem it just and proper to dispose of these appeals and modify the judgment dated 23.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge as follows..."
The Court emphasized that the state cannot terminate service of individuals who have been performing essential public duties for over a decade merely because their initial appointment was irregular. The doctrine of legitimate expectation and the imperative of educational stability override technical illegality. The Court further noted that the state has had ample time since 2015 to initiate RPSC recruitment for these posts and cannot now use procedural non-compliance as a shield to deny livelihood.
The Court also accepted the honorarium rate of Rs. 800 per hour as a fair and reasonable compensation, noting that it has been consistently paid and accepted by the petitioners for years. Any future revision must be prospective and not retroactive.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as the Division Bench’s order dated 19.09.2025 in Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan. The petitioners are entitled to:
- Continue in their respective posts until replaced by regular employees or candidates duly selected through RPSC
- Continue receiving honorarium at Rs. 800 per hour, or as revised by the state from time to time
- Their continuation is subject to sufficient student enrollment in the courses they teach
All pending applications are dismissed as infructuous. The state is directed to initiate RPSC recruitment for these posts within six months.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Continuation Is a Right, Not a Concession
- Practitioners representing contractual faculty must now argue that long-term service (5+ years) creates a legitimate expectation of continuation
- The burden shifts to the state to prove why continuation would be contrary to public interest
- Termination without offering a path to regularization is now legally untenable
Honorarium Rates Are Legally Recognized Compensation
- The Rs. 800/hour rate is now a binding standard for contractual faculty in Rajasthan
- Any reduction without notice or justification may be challenged as arbitrary
- Future recruitment policies must explicitly reference honorarium as part of the compensation structure
RPSC Recruitment Cannot Be Delayed Indefinitely
- The Court’s directive to initiate recruitment within six months sets a precedent for accountability
- Delays beyond this period may attract contempt proceedings
- State departments must now maintain a public register of vacant posts requiring RPSC recruitment
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation Applies to Public Education
- The judgment extends Manish Gupta to the education sector, affirming that public interest in uninterrupted teaching trumps procedural irregularities
- This principle may now be invoked in other service contexts - health, municipal services, and technical education
No More Blanket Dismissals of Contractual Staff
- Courts will no longer accept blanket claims of illegality to terminate long-serving staff
- Each case must be examined on duration of service, public necessity, and state’s failure to regularize
- Petitioners must now be given an opportunity to prove their continuous service through pay slips, appointment letters, and student attendance records
