Madhopur, Rajasthan v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of

No. 3, Near Basanti Chowk, P.o. Sriganganagar, Dist. Ganganagar, Raj.

5. Surbhi Pareek W/o Jai Vardhan Pareek, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 133-134, Chetali Gate, Ramdev Basti, 5-E Chhoti, Ganganagar, Raj.

6. Kavita Verma W/o Krishan Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Harijan Mohalla, Near Panchayat Samiti, Sadulshahr, Gangangar, Raj.

7. Pankaj Kumar S/o Mani Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 17-Md-A, New Gharsana, Ganganagar, Raj.

8. Manpreet Kour D/o Gurmeet Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 90, Nagouri Colony, 3 E Chhoti, Srigangangar, Ganganagar, Raj.

9. Dr. Seema Verma W/o Sukhcharan Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Near Gande Nale Ki Digi, Ward No. 3, Sadulshahr, Ganganagar, Raj.

10. Dr. Sangeeta Malethiya W/o Radhe Shyam, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 04, Behind Sahkari Samiti Bhawan, 6 Lnp, Udyog Vihar, Ganganagar, Raj.

11. Heena Sharma W/o Aayush Jain, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Main Market, Vtc - Chotala (267), Dist. Sirsa, Haryana.

12. Kanchan Sharma W/o Rakesh Kumar, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 9/21, Ward No. 8, Housing Board, Hanumangarh, Raj. [2025:RJ-JP:13960] (2 of 5) [CW-4239/2025]

13. Pradeep Kumar S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Modhu Nagar (Vpo - Modhu Nagar) Rawatsar, Hanumangarh, Raj.

14. Mohan Singh Jatav S/o Bharosi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Vtc- Mohcha Ka Pura, Post- Mohcha, Sub- District- Gangapur, District- Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

15. Sachin Kumar Garg S/o Rajesh Kumar Garg, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 123, Ward No- 24, Sharda Bhawan, Naya Bazar, Gangapurcity, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.

16. Rahul Kumar Sharma S/o Kalyan Sahai Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Main Market, Rajpur Bada, Alwar, Rajgarh, Rajasthan.

17. Farida Bano W/o Rashid Khan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o House No. 23-A, Police Line, R. K. Nagar, Baran Raod, Kota, Rajasthan.

18. Kuldeep Kumar Meena S/o Kedar Lal Meena, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Gali Wada, Bawanwas Patti, Kala, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Sankul, Jln

6. Marg, Jaipur. Principal, Government Girls College, Sambhar Lake Principal, Govt. Girls College, Nadoti. Principal, Govt. Women College, Sadulshahr. Principal, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Govt. College, Sriganganagar.

7. Principal, Govt. Nehru Memorial College, Hanumangarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shobha Sharma for Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order [2025:RJ-JP:13960] (3 of 5) [CW-4239/2025] 27/03/2025

1. The instant petition has been preferred with the following prayer:- “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.

2. 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 2024-2025/ 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.

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

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 directions:- “(i) Respondents while engaging the Guest Faculty in various the session 2023-24 [2025:RJ-JP:13960] (4 of 5) [CW-4239/2025] 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 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 direction 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. [2025:RJ-JP:13960] (5 of 5) [CW-4239/2025]

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 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. Karan/18 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J