Rajasthan HC Directs State to Engage Vocational Trainers Directly, Bars Replacement Through Fresh VTPs
The Rajasthan High Court held that contractual vocational trainers serving under a government scheme cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees through a new service provider, and ordered direct engagement with honorarium paid by bank transfer.
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, has allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by over 500 vocational trainers and teachers employed at government senior secondary schools across the State. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, sitting singly, quashed the termination of their services that had followed the expiry of contracts with Vocational Training Providers (VTPs), and directed the State to engage the petitioners directly on a contractual basis. The court also restrained the respondents from routing the petitioners' engagement through any VTP and ordered that honorarium be paid directly through bank transfer. The judgment turns on a single, concrete proposition: one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced with another set of contractual employees merely because a service provider's contract has ended.
Vocational Trainers Deployed Under a Government Scheme, Then Left Without Work
The petitioners — named individually across S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12054/2025 and connected petitions including S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19095/2025 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20466/2025 — were vocational trainers and teachers posted at government schools spread across virtually every district of Rajasthan, from Banswara and Dungarpur to Hanumangarh, Barmer, Jhalawar, and Jaipur.
They had been engaged not directly by the State but through VTPs, private entities selected by the respondents through a tender process to implement the vocational education component of the National Education Policy 2020. A tender document dated 07.08.2024 placed before the court showed an estimated engagement cost of ₹130.06 crores under the scheme. When the State terminated its contracts with the VTPs, the petitioners' services came to an end as a consequence — their employment being co-terminous with the principal contractor.
The respondents named in the petitions included the State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of School Education; the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner; the Commissioner, Rajasthan Council of School Education; and the Deputy Director, Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan, Jaipur.
The Legal Question: Can the State Cycle Contractual Workers Through Successive Contractors?
The core legal issue was whether the State, acting as a principal employer implementing a centrally guided scheme, could terminate the services of an existing workforce simply by changing the service provider, and then re-engage the same or equivalent workforce through a fresh VTP selected by tender.
The petitioners argued that their engagement under a government scheme gave them a right to resist replacement. The State, through the Additional Advocate General, contended that the court should not interfere in a policy decision about how the scheme is implemented, and also raised the objection that the litigation was effectively proxy litigation on behalf of the VTPs whose contracts had been terminated.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Jain rejected the State's framing of the dispute as a challenge to policy. The court drew a clear line: the petitioners were not asking the court to direct continuation of the scheme or to regularise their services. They were challenging the mode of engagement — specifically, the practice of terminating an existing workforce and replacing it with another set of contractual employees through a new contractor at the end of every year.
The court found that when a service provider is changed but the manpower remains the same, the agreement with the VTP is sham or nominal. It held that when a person acts under the control and supervision of the principal employer, the court must examine the true relationship between the principal employer and the worker. The principal employer, the court said, is always responsible for payment to the workforce engaged directly or indirectly.
The court noted that the scheme itself, framed under guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 12.10.2022, contemplated a structured selection process for vocational trainers. However, nothing was placed on record by the respondents to show that the petitioners had been selected through any such process. The court concluded that only the contractor (VTP) had been selected through a tender, and everything else had been left to the contractor's discretion — a situation it described as inconsistent with the object of the scheme.
On the proxy litigation objection, the court was direct: “The engagement may be direct or indirect, but engagement policy has to be consistent.” It held that the petitioners were before the court to protect their own livelihood, not the interests of the VTPs.
The court also pointed to the State of Haryana, which had continued persons engaged through VTPs and subsequently engaged them directly, with the State Government paying them directly. It noted that a neighbouring State had chosen a State-controlled organisation, HKRNL, for this purpose, and observed that Rajasthan could adopt the same approach through a skill development corporation.
On the question of regularisation, the court was explicit: the petitioners have no right to claim regularisation. Their engagement is contractual in nature. If the scheme is withdrawn or closed by the Government of India, the State is under no obligation to continue their services. But the court held that till the scheme is in force, the petitioners have a right to resist replacement by another set of contractual employees.
The court found that cycling the workforce through successive VTPs every year increases the risk of exploitation, reduction in wages, and untimely payment. It referred to its own earlier decisions in Tony Meghwal and Radha Rani, where it had highlighted the same concern and directed direct engagement. It distinguished the Supreme Court decisions in Binny Ltd. v. Sadashivan and Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India on the ground that those cases involved private contracts without State instrumentality, unlike the present matter.
Directions on Qualification Scrutiny and Future Engagement
The court balanced the equities by building in a qualification check. Before directly engaging any petitioner, the respondents are at liberty to examine each case individually and verify whether the petitioner holds the qualifications prescribed under the guidelines. If a petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification, the respondents are free to terminate that person's services. But if a petitioner is qualified, the court held, that person must not be permitted to be exploited by any contractor or service provider.
The court also noted that the respondents are free to route future engagement through a skill development corporation of the State of Rajasthan, if they choose to establish or use one, rather than engaging directly themselves.
Order
The writ petitions were allowed. The court issued the following directions:
The respondents are directed to engage the petitioners — vocational trainers and teachers — directly on a contractual basis as per the guidelines dated 12.10.2022. The respondents are restrained from engaging the petitioners through any VTP.
The termination of services of petitioners who were engaged through VTPs, consequent upon termination of the VTP agreements, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-engage the petitioners subject to scrutiny of their qualifications as prescribed in the guidelines.
Honorarium is to be paid directly to the petitioners through bank transfer.
The engagement shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the scheme and will terminate if the scheme is closed or changed by the Government of India. The services of the petitioners shall not be replaced with another set of contractual employees for the duration of the scheme.
The respondents are directed to frame specific guidelines or rules for governance of the petitioners, if the engagement contract provides for the same. The respondents are also free to route engagement through a skill development corporation of the State of Rajasthan.
All writ petitions, along with miscellaneous applications if any, stand disposed of.