The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed the continued employment rights of contractual faculty appointed under the Vidhya Sambal Yojna, holding that their services must be retained until replaced by regular appointees selected through RPSC. This decision, grounded in binding precedent from the Supreme Court and a prior Division Bench ruling, provides critical clarity for thousands of contractual educators across Rajasthan.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners are nine contractual Assistant Professors appointed under the Vidhya Sambal Yojna, a state-sponsored program to address faculty shortages in government colleges. They were engaged on a temporary, honorarium-based basis to teach subjects including Genetics, English Literature, Chemistry, Zoology, History, and Hindi in government colleges across Jaipur, Ajmer, Sikar, Dausa, Bhilwara, and Sawai Madhopur. Despite performing full-time teaching duties for years, their appointments were not regularized, and they faced uncertainty regarding continuation.
Key Facts
- All petitioners were appointed between 2015 and 2020 under the Vidhya Sambal Yojna, a scheme designed to fill vacancies pending regular recruitment by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC)
- They are currently teaching in the following institutions:
- Govt. Agriculture College, Behrawanda Khurd, Sawai Madhopur (Dr. Kamal Kumar Sharma)
- Govt. Girls College, Nasirabad, Ajmer (Varsha Saini)
- Govt. College, Sawar, Ajmer (Mish Al and Dr. Namita Dave)
- Govt. Girls College, Dantaramgarh, Sikar (Dr. Yashwant Warkare)
- Teekaram Paliwal Govt. College, Mandawar, Dausa (Indra Kumar Bankolia, Dr. Ramlal Chaudharee, Dr. Shadab Alam, Dr. Raj Rani)
- None of the petitioners have been replaced by candidates selected through RPSC competitive examinations
- The State has not conducted regular recruitment for the posts they occupy, despite vacancies existing for years
- They receive honorarium at Rs. 800 per hour, as per prevailing rates under the scheme
- No formal termination orders have been issued, but their continued employment has been subject to administrative discretion
Procedural History
- The petitioners filed this writ petition on 15.03.2026 before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
- The petition sought continuation of service until replaced by regular RPSC appointees, and confirmation of honorarium at Rs. 800 per hour
- The petitioners relied on the Division Bench judgment dated 19.09.2025 in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. (DB Special Appeal Writ No. 903/2023)
- That judgment, in turn, relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Gupta & Ors. v. President, Bhagidari Samiti & Ors. (2022) 15 SCC 540
- No counter-affidavits or opposing evidence were filed by the respondents challenging the factual assertions of the petitioners
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- A direction to continue their services until replaced by regular appointees selected through RPSC
- Confirmation of honorarium at Rs. 800 per hour, or as revised by the State from time to time
- A declaration that their continuation is contingent only on sufficient student enrollment in their respective courses
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether contractual faculty appointed under the Vidhya Sambal Yojna are entitled to continued service until replaced by regular appointees selected through RPSC, in light of the binding precedent established in Manish Gupta v. President, Bhagidari Samiti and the Rajasthan High Court’s own ruling in Ram Chaturvedi & Ors.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel Ms. Almas Khanam submitted that the Supreme Court in Manish Gupta v. President, Bhagidari Samiti (2022) 15 SCC 540 had laid down a clear principle: contractual teachers appointed to fill vacancies pending regular recruitment cannot be terminated arbitrarily. The Court held that such appointments are made to meet genuine academic needs and must continue until regular candidates are selected and appointed through the statutory process. The Division Bench of this Court, in Ram Chaturvedi & Ors., had applied this principle to Rajasthan’s Vidhya Sambal Yojna, granting continuation rights to similarly situated faculty. The petitioners argued that their situation is indistinguishable from those in Ram Chaturvedi, and that the State has not demonstrated any change in circumstances to justify departure from the precedent.
For the Respondent
The State, through Additional Advocate General Mr. Chinmay Saxena, did not contest the applicability of the precedent. No counter-arguments were advanced challenging the factual basis of the petitioners’ claims or the legal reasoning in Manish Gupta or Ram Chaturvedi. The State did not file any affidavit disputing the continued existence of vacancies or the absence of RPSC recruitment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the issue before it was not novel but squarely covered by its own Division Bench judgment dated 19.09.2025 in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ram Chaturvedi & Ors., which had itself been based on the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in Manish Gupta v. President, Bhagidari Samiti. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had emphasized that contractual appointments under schemes like Vidhya Sambal Yojna are not temporary in the ordinary sense but are made to fulfill essential educational needs in the absence of regular recruitment.
"The State cannot be permitted to keep the position vacant indefinitely and yet terminate the services of those who are performing the duties of the post on a continuous basis. The right to continue is not a matter of grace but of necessity to ensure uninterrupted academic service."
The Court held that the petitioners, like those in Ram Chaturvedi, are entitled to continuation of service on two conditions: (1) until replaced by candidates selected through RPSC, and (2) provided sufficient student enrollment exists for the courses they teach. The Court further affirmed that the honorarium of Rs. 800 per hour, currently being paid, must continue unless revised by the State through a formal policy. The Court found no reason to depart from the settled legal position and noted that the State had not offered any justification for doing so.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as the Division Bench order dated 19.09.2025 in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. The petitioners are entitled to continue in their posts until replaced by regular RPSC appointees, subject to sufficient student enrollment in their respective courses. They shall continue to receive honorarium at Rs. 800 per hour, or at such revised rate as may be notified by the State from time to time. All pending applications are dismissed as infructuous.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Continuation Is a Right, Not a Privilege
- Practitioners representing contractual faculty under state schemes must now argue that continuation is a legal entitlement under Manish Gupta, not a discretionary benefit
- Any termination without replacement through RPSC is prima facie illegal and subject to writ remedy
- The burden shifts to the State to prove that either (a) regular recruitment has been completed, or (b) student enrollment has fallen below viable levels
Honorarium Rates Are Protected
- The Rs. 800/hour rate is now legally recognized as the baseline for such appointments
- Any unilateral reduction without policy change or consultation may be challenged as arbitrary
- Future litigation can cite this judgment to resist arbitrary cuts in honorarium
RPSC Recruitment Is the Only Valid Exit
- The State cannot terminate faculty on grounds of budget cuts, administrative convenience, or performance evaluations
- The only lawful exit is through formal selection and appointment by RPSC
- Institutions must maintain records of vacancies and recruitment timelines to demonstrate compliance
