In a significant ruling affecting hundreds of vocational trainers working in government schools across Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the State authorities to engage such trainers directly on a contractual basis instead of routing their appointments through Vocational Training Providers (VTPs). The Court also set aside the termination of trainers whose services came to an end after agreements between the State and private VTPs were cancelled.
Justice Ashok Kumar Jain delivered the judgment while deciding a batch of writ petitions led by Govind Ram Yadav & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. concerning the implementation of vocational education schemes in government schools.
Background of the Case
The petitioners had been working as vocational trainers and teachers under a government-funded education scheme through various Vocational Training Providers. According to the petitioners, the State authorities cancelled agreements with several VTPs, alleging irregularities and failures in appointing trainers. As a result, the trainers who had been serving in schools for years lost their engagements.
The petitioners argued that the vocational education policy allowed the State to engage trainers either directly or through VTPs. They contended that continuing to rely on intermediary agencies resulted in exploitation, delayed payments, and uncertainty in service conditions. They also asserted that replacing existing trainers with another set of contractual personnel would violate settled legal principles.
The State opposed the petitions, maintaining that the trainers were engaged by private service providers and not directly by the government. It argued that the Court should not interfere with policy choices relating to implementation of the scheme.
After examining the policy framework and the scheme guidelines, the Court noted that the State was not compelled to engage vocational trainers only through VTPs. The guidelines expressly gave flexibility to recruit trainers either directly or through accredited training providers.
The Court observed that vocational trainers were serving under a government scheme and had acquired a legitimate right to continue for as long as the scheme remained operational. It held that they were entitled to challenge decisions affecting their continuation when their services were discontinued solely because the contracts of VTPs had ended.
Referring to precedents on contractual employment, the Court emphasized that “one set of contractual employee cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employee.” It found that repeated changes in service providers created uncertainty and increased the risk of exploitation of the workforce.
The Court further remarked that the State had not adequately followed the spirit of the guidelines governing the vocational education scheme. It stated that implementation of a national education policy required a standardized and transparent approach rather than casual engagement practices.
Justice Jain also clarified that the petitioners could not claim regularization merely because they had been working under the scheme. Their engagement remained contractual and dependent on the continuation of the scheme itself.
As the Court put it, the petitioners had a right to resist replacement by another contractual workforce while the scheme continued, though they could not insist on permanent absorption.
Allowing the petitions, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State authorities to engage the vocational trainers directly on a contractual basis in accordance with the applicable guidelines and restrained them from engaging the petitioners through private VTPs.
The Court quashed the termination of those trainers whose services had ended following the cancellation of agreements with VTPs and ordered their contractual engagement, subject to verification of prescribed qualifications.
The Court further directed that honorarium be paid directly to the trainers through bank transfer, clarified that their engagement would continue only for the duration of the scheme, and held that they should not be replaced by another set of contractual employees while the scheme remained in force.
Accordingly, the writ petitions and connected applications were disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Govind Ram Yadav & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Lead Matter)
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12054/2025 (with connected matters)
Judge: Justice Ashok Kumar Jain
Decision Date: 01 April 2026
