The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed the continued employment of guest faculty under the Vidhya Sambal Scheme until replaced by regularly appointed candidates through RPSC, reinforcing procedural fairness and institutional stability in state-funded education. The judgment, grounded in a prior Division Bench precedent, provides clear, binding parameters for the tenure and compensation of contractual teachers across multiple districts.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners are six guest faculty members employed under the Vidhya Sambal Scheme in government colleges in Ajmer and Tonk districts. They were appointed on a contractual basis to teach subjects including Botany, Chemistry, History, English, Hindi, and Botany again, to fill vacancies arising from lack of regular appointments. Despite years of service and continued student enrollment, their employment remained temporary, with no assurance of continuity or regularization.
Key Facts
The petitioners were appointed as guest faculty between 2018 and 2021, depending on subject demand and student enrollment
They are currently teaching in Government College Kekri and Government College Sawar
No regular appointments have been made through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for these posts
The State has not issued any policy for regularization or transition to permanent posts
The petitioners have been paid honorarium at Rs.800 per hour, as per prevailing rates
No formal termination notices have been issued, but their employment remains precarious
Procedural History
2023: Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court delivered judgment in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 903/2023; State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. on 19.09.2025
13.07.2026: Present writ petition filed before the High Court, Jaipur Bench, seeking continuation of service and clarity on honorarium
13.07.2026: Hearing conducted; both parties agreed to be bound by the precedent in Ram Chaturvedi
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners:
Argued that discontinuation would disrupt education, harm student learning, and violate principles of legitimate expectation
Highlighted that no regular appointments have been made despite repeated vacancies
Requested continuation until RPSC fills posts through competitive selection
For the Respondents:
Did not contest the applicability of the Ram Chaturvedi precedent
Accepted that the petitioners’ continuation should follow the same terms as laid down in that judgment
Did not oppose the honorarium rate of Rs.800 per hour or the condition of continuation based on student enrollment
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
Continuation of service until replaced by regular RPSC-appointed teachers
Confirmation of honorarium at Rs.800 per hour or as revised by the State
Protection against arbitrary termination
A binding direction to the State to ensure uninterrupted academic instruction
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether guest faculty employed under the Vidhya Sambal Scheme are entitled to continue in service until replaced by regular appointees selected through RPSC, and whether the honorarium rate of Rs.800 per hour constitutes a legally enforceable entitlement.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the binding precedent of D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 903/2023; State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Ram Chaturvedi & Ors., decided on 19.09.2025, which had already settled the issue for similarly situated faculty. They argued that the State’s failure to conduct RPSC recruitment despite prolonged vacancies created a legitimate expectation of continuity. Discontinuation without notice or alternative placement would violate Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly given the critical role these teachers play in rural education.
For the Respondent
The State did not dispute the applicability of the Ram Chaturvedi judgment. The Advocate General conceded that the same terms should apply to the present petitioners, acknowledging that the educational ecosystem depends on the stability of these contractual appointments. No counter-legal argument was advanced.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the matter was squarely governed by its own Division Bench judgment in Ram Chaturvedi, which had comprehensively addressed the rights of guest faculty under the Vidhya Sambal Scheme. The Court noted that the State had not challenged the reasoning or the directives in that case, nor had it introduced any new policy or justification for differential treatment.
"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:- (1) The respondent/original petitioner/applicants are entitled to continue on their respective posts till they are replaced by existing regular employees or regularly selected candidates through RPSC. (2) The respondents/original petitioners/applicants would be continued on their posts provided that sufficient number of students are available for the particular courses(s) for which they were appointed. (3) The respondents/original petitioners/applicants would be entitled to honorarium at the rate of Rs.800/- per hour as is being paid to them presently or to be modified by the State from time to time."
The Court emphasized that the continuation of guest faculty is not a grant of permanency but a pragmatic measure to ensure educational continuity in the absence of timely recruitment. The condition of student enrollment acts as a safeguard against artificial retention of posts. The honorarium rate, while not a statutory wage, has been consistently paid and is now recognized as the standard benchmark.
The Court further noted that the State’s silence on the matter, coupled with its acceptance of the precedent, amounted to acquiescence in the legal position laid down in Ram Chaturvedi. There was no basis to distinguish the present petitioners from those in the earlier case.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The petitioners are entitled to continue in service until replaced by regular employees appointed through RPSC, subject to sufficient student enrollment in their respective courses. They shall continue to receive honorarium at the rate of Rs.800 per hour, or such revised rate as may be notified by the State from time to time. All pending applications, including the stay application, are disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Continuation Is Not a Privilege But a Procedural Imperative
Practitioners representing contractual teachers may now cite this judgment to oppose arbitrary termination where RPSC recruitment is delayed
The State cannot terminate guest faculty merely because their appointments are contractual if regular recruitment is pending
Courts will treat continuation as a default position unless the State demonstrates a compelling reason to discontinue
Honorarium Rates Are De Facto Entitlements
Once a consistent honorarium rate is paid over time, it becomes a de facto term of service
Any future reduction must be prospective, notified in advance, and accompanied by a rational justification
Teachers may challenge sudden cuts in honorarium as violative of legitimate expectation
Student Enrollment as a Conditional Safeguard
The condition of "sufficient number of students" is not a loophole for termination but a functional criterion
Institutions cannot discontinue faculty due to low enrollment in one semester if the course is offered annually
The burden lies on the State to prove genuine non-viability, not on the teacher to prove demand
