DR. MONIKA AGARWAL D/O SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH AGARWAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/3951/2025 · 2025-03-20
Anoop Kumar Dhand
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 12232 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 12232 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3951/2025
1. Dr. Monika Agarwal D/o Shri Chandra Prakash Agar- wal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 635-A, R.k. Puram, Ahinsa Circle Ke Pass, Ward No.23 Vighyan Nagar, Kota, District Kota Rajasthan, Worked At Government College Digod, District Kota (Assistant Professor Eng- lish). 2. Murlidhar Panchariya S/o Shri Ramrakh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Kumharon Ki Mod, Lnt Road, Old Line Gangashahar, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan, Worked At Government Mangilal Bangri College, Nokha, Bikaner, (Assistant Professor Geology). 3. Beena Kumari W/o Shriram Barkodia D/o Shri Raghu- veer Prasad, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 75 Deep Vi- har, Sirsi Road, Panchywala, Jaipur, District Jaipur Rajasthan, Worked At Government College Vidhyad- har Nagar, Jaipur, (Assistant Professor Geography). 4. Tikam Chand Bairwa S/o Shri Lalluram Bairwa, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 127, Ganga Bag Mela Ka Choraha, Ward No.3, Rajgarh, Alwar District Alwar, Worked At Government Girls College, Bandikui, Dis- trict Dausa (Assistant Professor Political Science). 5. Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Brajmohan Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Jodhawas, Post Bhangroli, Tehsil Thanagaji, District Alwar, Rajasthan, Worked At Government Girls College, Banskho, Dis- trict Alwar, (Assistant Professor Geography). 6. Dr. Bharatlal Meena S/o Shri Nandlal Meena, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. 101, Mangal Marg, Kharda Ki Dhani, Chhatrasal Nagar, Malviyanagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Worked At Government Girls Col- lege, Banskho, District Alwar, (Assistant Professor Geography). 7. Rakesh Kalarwal S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o C-48, Maruti Colony, Dausa, Rajasthan, Worked At Government Girls College, Rajgarh, Alwar, (Assistant Professor Sociology). ----Petitioners
(2 of 4) [CW-3951/2025] Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur, (Rajasthan)
2. The Commissioner College Education, Block-4, Shik- sha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur. 3. Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Joint Director (Hrd), College Education, Block-4, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Sharma For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/03/2025
1. The instant petition has been preferred with the follow- ing prayer:-
“1. Action of the respondents by which they are not allowing petitioners to con- tinue their posts of college lecturers under vidya sambal yojana in respective colleges in respective subject may kindly be held illegal and arbitrary. 2.
By appropriate writ of direction the re- spondents may kindly be directed to allow petitioners to continue on the post of col- lege lecturer under vidya sambal yojana in respective colleges in respective subject for next academic session 2025 - 2026/ next academic semester and further aca- demic sessions/semesters and also di- rected 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,
(3 of 4) [CW-3951/2025]
3. Any other relief which this Court may deems fit and proper may be granted to the petitioner.”
2. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made to continue the services of the petitioners as guest fac- ulty under the Vidhya Sambal Yojna and not to replace them with another set of contractual employees in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2025. 3. During the course of arguments, it is apprised to this Court that a similar controversy as involved in this petition, came before this Court in the case of “Ram Chaturvedi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” (S.B. Civil Writ Peti- tion No.1474/2023) and the said controversy has been set at rest with the following directions:-
“(i) Respondents while engaging the Guest Faculty in the session 2023-24 in various col- leges/universities under the Raj-CES under Vidya Sambal Scheme, shall give preference to engage the petitioners who have already ren- dered services as Guest Faculty in this scheme in the previous sessions/years, at previous place of posting or nearby place obviously sub- ject to availability of vacancies in the previous college/university or nearby place as well as after considering the satisfactory services of petitioners.
(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. (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
(4 of 4) [CW-3951/2025] the fresh aspirants in accordance with the cri- teria 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 re-engagement in the Vidya Sambal Scheme for session 2023-24 would be gov- erned by terms and conditions of the scheme and shall not create any additional equity/ claim which is not available in the scheme.”
4. In the aforesaid case of Ram Chaturvedi (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court issued directions to the re- spondents to give preference to engage the co-petitioners, who have already rendered services as Guest Faculty in this scheme in the previous sessions/years. 5. Since the controversy involved in this petition has al- ready been set at rest in the case of Ram Chaturvedi (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take different view. 6. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the directions issued in the case of Ram Chaturvedi (Supra). 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/29