Disposed¶37

Dr. Jaykaran Yadav S/O Shri Hardayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Mar 2025CW/2785/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vidya Sambal Yojana guest faculty continuation; Raj-CES scheme; preference to previously engaged guest faculty at previous or nearby posting; non-dislodgement/replacement by fresh contractual appointments; 2025 recruitment advertisement; reliance on coordinate bench precedent Ram Chaturvedi v. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil WP 1474/2023); afresh application per scheme terms; Rajasthan College Education Department respondents; writ petition disposed of, stay application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of the Ram Chaturvedi precedent: respondents expected to give preference to the petitioners during the appointment process under the 2025 advertisement; stay application and all pending applications disposed of. ¶37

Dr. Jaykaran Yadav S/O Shri Hardayal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' action of not allowing the petitioners to continue on their posts of college lecturers (guest faculty) under the Vidya Sambal Yojana in their respective colleges and subjects, and replacing them with fresh contractual appointees under the 2025 advertisement, is illegal/arbitrary, and whether the petitioners must be allowed to continue and not be terminated till vacant posts are available. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with the expectation that the respondents will give preference to the petitioners (who have rendered service as Guest Faculty under the Vidya Sambal Yojana) at the time of the appointment process undertaken pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2025.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Since the controversy in this petition has already been set at rest by the decision in Ram Chaturvedi (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1474/2023), this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view and adopts the same view as the Coordinate Bench.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.), order dated 06/03/2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2785/2025: Three working Assistant Professors engaged as Guest Faculty under the Vidya Sambal Yojana sought continuation in their respective colleges/subjects and non-replacement by a fresh set of contractual employees under the advertisement issued in 2025. Noting that the identical controversy had already been settled by the Coordinate Bench in Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1474/2023) — whose directions required preference to previously engaged Guest Faculty at the same/nearby institution subject to vacancies and satisfactory service, prohibited dislodging/replacing them with fresh Guest Faculty subject to vacancy and need, and required afresh applications governed strictly by scheme terms — the Court found no valid reason to take a different view. Petition disposed of with the expectation that the respondents give preference to the petitioners at the time of the appointment process under the 2025 advertisement; stay application and pending applications disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:10157]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2785/2025

¶4

Dr. Jaykaran Yadav S/o Shri Hardayal Singh, aged about 45 Years, R/o Village And Post Kohrana, Tehsil Behror, District Kotputli-Behror Rajasthan-301713 Worked At Government Girls College, Bardod District Kotputli-Behror (Assistant Professor Hindi).

¶5

Dr. Bharat Samrat S/o Shri Prabhuram, aged about 43 Years, R/o 41 Rajeev Colony, Ward No.15, Behror Alwar Rajasthan-301701 Worked At Government Girls College, Bardod District Kotputli-Behror (Assistant Professor History).

¶6

Dr. Vinita sharma d/o chandra prakash sharma, aged about 33 years, r/o 7-k-44, mahaveer nagar iiird, kota rajasthan-324005, worked at Government Commerce College Kota Girls (assistant professor bba).

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, (Rajasthan)

¶10

The Commissioner College Education, Block-4, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur.

¶11

Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶12

The joint director (HRD), College Education, Block-4, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Praveen Sharma

¶15

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶16

Order

¶17

06/03/2025

¶18

The instant petition has been preferred with the following

prayer:-

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:10157]

[CW-2785/2025]

“1. Action of the respondents by which they are not allowing petitioners to continue their posts of college lecturers under vidya sambal yojana in respective colleges in respective subject may kindly be held illegal and arbitrary.

¶24

By appropriate writ of direction the respondents may kindly be directed to allow petitioners to continue on the post of college lecturer under vidya sambal yojana in respective colleges in respective subject for next academic session 2025-2026/next academic semester and further academic sessions/semesters and also directed to respondents not to terminate services of petitioners till availability of vacant post in any Govt. College in state of Rajasthan in subject of petitioners.

¶25

Any other relief which this Court may deems fit and proper may be granted to the petitioner.”

¶26

By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made to continue the petitioners as guest faculty under the Vidhya Sambal Yojna and not to replace them from another set of contractual employees in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2025.

¶27

During the course of arguments, it is apprised to this Court that the similar controversy involved in this petition, came before this Court in the case of “ Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1474/2023 ) and the said controversy has been set at rest with the following directions:-

¶28

“(i) Respondents while engaging the Guest Faculty in the session 2023-24 in various colleges/universities under the Raj-CES under Vidya Sambal Scheme, shall give preference to engage the petitioners who have already rendered services as Guest Faculty in this scheme in the previous sessions/years, at previous place of posting or nearby place obviously

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:10157]

[CW-2785/2025]

subject to availability of vacancies in the previous college/university or nearby place as well as after considering the satisfactory services of petitioners.

¶33

(ii) Petitioners who have been engaged as Guest Faculty in the previous sessions shall not be dislodged/replaced from its previous place with fresh appointment of Guest Faculty, subject to availability of vacant post and need of engagement.

¶34

(iii) After re-engagement/adjustment of the petitioners i.e. previous Guest Faculty in the Vidya Sambal Scheme, against vacancies for the year 2023-24, the remaining vacant posts of previous years, and on the new vacancies accrued in session 2023-24 may be filled by the fresh aspirants in accordance with the criteria of selection prescribed in the scheme. (iv) It is made clear that petitioners who were already engaged in the previous sessions and are willing for appointment/engagement in the present session 2023-24 in the Vidya Sambal Scheme, are required to apply afresh pursuant to advertisement issued by respondents and his/her reengagement in the Vidya Sambal Scheme for session 2023-24 would be governed by terms and conditions of the scheme and shall not create any additional equity/claim which is not available in the scheme.”

¶35

In the aforesaid case of Ram Chaturvedi (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has issued directions to the respondents to give preference to engage the co-petitioners, who have already rendered services as Guest Faculty in this scheme in the previous sessions/years.

¶36

Since the controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest in the case of Ram Chaturvedi (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take different view.

¶37

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with the expectation from the respondents to give preference to the petitioners at the time of process of appointment in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2025.

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:10157]

[CW-2785/2025]