HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17877/2024 Dr Amrata Chaudhary D/o Sh. Har Prasad Chaudhary, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 151, Roopnagar, Mali Ki Kothi, Bagrana, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur. 3. Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Nodal Officer Principal, Government College, Bassi, Jaipur. 5. Dr. Badri Narayan Jat, Guest Faculty, Political Science, C/o Principal Government College Kanota, Government Mahatma Gandhi School Premises, Samaria Road, Near Gram Panchayat Bhawan, Behind Police Station Kanota, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Singh for Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/03/2025 1. The instant petition has been preferred with the following prayer:- 1. To quash and set aside the Notification dated 25.6.2024 (Annexure 3) being arbitrary and discriminatory. (2 of 4) [CW-17877/2024] 2.To direct the respondents to continue petitioner on the post of Political Science Subject in Government College for current session 2024-25 and subsequent sessions. 3. Cost of the litigation also be directed to award to the petitioners. And, 4. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be awarded in favour of the petitioners. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made to continue the service of the petitioner as guest faculty under the Vidhya Sambal Yojna and not to replace her 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 the 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 directions:- “(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 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 dislodged/replaced from its previous place (3 of 4) [CW-17877/2024] 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 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 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 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. 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 writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the direction issued in the case of Ram Chaturvedi (Supra). (4 of 4) [CW-17877/2024] 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/297