Vidya Sambal Yojna | Rajasthan HC Mandates Continuity of Guest Faculty Until Regular Replacement Under Judicial Precedent

The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed the continuity of guest faculties under the Vidya Sambal Yojna, directing that they shall remain engaged until replaced by regular employees or RPSC-selected candidates. This judgment, following the precedent in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chaturvedi, ensures stability in higher education institutions while addressing systemic vacancies, though its enforceability remains subject to a pending Larger Bench decision.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, Phool Chand Regar, Girdhari Lal Sharma, and Santosh Kumar Nimoria, are Assistant Professors engaged as guest faculties under the Vidya Sambal Yojna in various Rajasthan government colleges. The scheme, introduced in 2021, aimed to address teaching vacancies by engaging experienced educators on a guest basis. The dispute arose over whether these guest faculties should be retained across academic sessions or replaced annually.

Key Facts

• The Vidya Sambal Yojna was launched in 2021 to engage guest faculties in institutions where over 60% of sanctioned posts were vacant
• Guest faculties were appointed to ensure continuity in teaching and completion of students' courses
• The petitioners sought continuation in their roles rather than fresh appointments each academic session
• The State’s position on retention versus replacement remained contested

Procedural History

• 19.09.2025: Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur) delivered judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 903/2023), directing continuation of guest faculties under specific conditions
• 09.10.2025: Order in Ram Chaturvedi was partially modified, entitling guest faculties to:
  • Continue on their posts until replaced by regular employees or RPSC-selected candidates
  • Retain their positions only if sufficient students were enrolled in their courses
  • Receive honorarium at Rs. 800/hour, subject to State revisions
• 2026: Present writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13569/2026) filed before the Jodhpur Bench seeking enforcement of the Ram Chaturvedi directions

The Parties' Positions

• Petitioners: Contended that the Ram Chaturvedi judgment squarely covered their case, entitling them to continuation under the scheme
• Respondents: While not disputing the applicability of Ram Chaturvedi, noted that the matter was referred to a Larger Bench, leaving the judgment’s enforceability in limbo

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought:

• Enforcement of the Ram Chaturvedi directions, ensuring their continuation as guest faculties
• Payment of honorarium at Rs. 800/hour until replaced by regular appointments

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether guest faculties engaged under the Vidya Sambal Yojna were entitled to continuity in their posts across academic sessions, or whether the State could mandate fresh appointments annually, disregarding prior service.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

• Relied on the Division Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Ram Chaturvedi & Ors., which held that guest faculties should continue until replaced by regular employees or RPSC-selected candidates
• Argued that the scheme’s objective - ensuring teaching continuity - would be defeated if faculties were replaced annually
• Emphasized that the Ram Chaturvedi directions were still operative despite the reference to a Larger Bench

For the Respondents

• Did not contest the applicability of the Ram Chaturvedi judgment but highlighted that its enforceability was subject to the Larger Bench’s decision
• Implied that the State retained discretion in implementing the scheme until final adjudication

The Court's Analysis

The Court observed that the Ram Chaturvedi judgment had already settled the legal position regarding guest faculty continuity. Key aspects of the analysis included:

1. Precedential Weight: The Division Bench’s directions in Ram Chaturvedi were binding unless overturned by a higher authority. The Court noted:

   "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."

2. Conditional Continuity: The Court reiterated that continuation was subject to:

   • Availability of sufficient students for the courses taught by the guest faculties
   • Replacement by regular employees or RPSC-selected candidates

3. Honorarium: The Rs. 800/hour honorarium, as directed in Ram Chaturvedi, was upheld, though subject to future revisions by the State.

4. Pending Reference: While acknowledging the reference to a Larger Bench, the Court held that the Ram Chaturvedi directions remained enforceable until a contrary decision was rendered.

The Verdict

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the Ram Chaturvedi judgment, with the following operative directions:

• The petitioners (and similarly situated guest faculties) shall continue in their posts until replaced by regular employees or RPSC-selected candidates
• Their continuation is conditional on sufficient student enrollment in their respective courses
• They shall receive honorarium at Rs. 800/hour, subject to State revisions
• The directions are subject to the Larger Bench’s decision, though currently enforceable

What This Means For Similar Cases

Continuity Over Fresh Appointments

• Stability in Employment: Guest faculties can now argue for continuity under the Ram Chaturvedi framework, reducing the uncertainty of annual replacements
• Practical Implications: Institutions must prioritize regular appointments to replace guest faculties, as ad-hoc engagements cannot be terminated arbitrarily
• Burden on State: The State must ensure timely RPSC selections to avoid prolonged reliance on guest faculties, failing which their continuation becomes mandatory

Honorarium and Financial Security

• Fixed Rate: The Rs. 800/hour honorarium provides financial predictability for guest faculties, though it remains subject to State revisions
• No Arbitrary Reductions: Institutions cannot unilaterally reduce honorarium below the court-directed rate without justification

Judicial Deference to Precedent

• Binding Nature of Interim Orders: Courts are likely to uphold interim directions even when matters are referred to Larger Benches, unless expressly stayed
• Strategic Litigation: Petitioners can leverage pending references to seek enforcement of favorable interim orders, as demonstrated in this case
• Caution for Employers: Until final adjudication, institutions must comply with interim directions to avoid contempt or adverse orders

Limitations and Future Uncertainty

• Subject to Larger Bench: The enforceability of these directions remains contingent on the Larger Bench’s decision, creating a temporary shield for guest faculties
• No Absolute Right: Continuation is not unconditional - it depends on student enrollment and replacement by regular appointments
• Monitoring Compliance: Guest faculties must actively track RPSC selections and institutional compliance to safeguard their positions