[2025:RJ-JP:14405] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4483/2025 Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Phool Chand Verma, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Plot No. E-490, Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Depart- ment Of Higher Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretar- iat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, College Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Principal, Government College, Bundi (Raj.) 4. Principal Government College Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Naina Saraf JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/03/2025 1. The instant petition has been preferred with the following prayer:- “1. By appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed as Guest Faculty under Vidhya Smbal Yojna. 2. The respondents be restrained from termi- nating the services of the petitioner ad he should not be replaced by another contractual candidate. 3. Any other order, or direction which deem, just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 4. Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” [2025:RJ-JP:14405] (2 of 3) [CW-4483/2025] 2. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made to continue the services of the petitioners as guest faculty 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 Petition No.1474/2023) and the said controversy has been set at rest with the following direc- tions:- “(i) Respondents while engaging the Guest Faculty in the session 2023-24 in various colleges/universi- ties under the Raj-CES under Vidya Sambal Scheme, shall give preference to engage the peti- tioners who have already rendered services as Guest Faculty in this scheme in the previous ses- sions/years, at previous place of posting or nearby place obviously subject 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 dis- lodged/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 peti- tioners 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 ac- cordance with the criteria of selection prescribed in the scheme. (iv) It is made clear that petitioners who were al- ready engaged in the previous sessions and are [2025:RJ-JP:14405] (3 of 3) [CW-4483/2025] 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 governed 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 respon- dents 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 already 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 di- rection 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 Aayush Sharma /22