Absence of automatic right to absorption despite experience upon termination of a time-bound government scheme.

The petitioners were appointed as "Preraks" (coordinators) under a Central Government scheme titled "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram".

Their appointments were made on an honorarium basis following the selection process prescribed by the scheme.

The petitioners performed their duties—conducting door-to-door adult education classes—from 2009 until 2017.

They initially challenged a letter dated 15.05.2017 issued by the Union of India (Respondent No. 4) which refused to enhance their honorarium and threatened termination.

While the original scheme ended, the State subsequently introduced similar literacy programs: "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" (2020) and "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (2022-2027).

The petitioners sought continuation of service, absorption into subsequent schemes, and enhancement of honorarium to minimum wages.

The court relied on the principles of service jurisprudence regarding scheme-based employment established in *Mohd. Abdul Kadir and others v. Director General of Police, Assam and others* (2009) 6 SCC 611.

This precedent establishes that while ad-hoc employees under a scheme do not have a right to regularization or security of tenure beyond the scheme's life, they should generally be continued as long as the scheme exists to avoid the "agony and anxiety" of annual terminations and re-appointments.

Furthermore, it underscores that while courts cannot make policy, they can act as "catalysts" to draw authorities' attention to issues involving public interest and tenure security.

The court noted that the petitioners had acquired significant skills and eight years of field experience during their tenure from 2009 to 2017.

While the "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" scheme is technically defunct, the respondent State’s return acknowledged that the current "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (active until 2027) involves "functions similar in nature" to the previous program.

The court observed that the experience of the petitioners constitutes an "additional asset" for the State.

Rather than granting a direct order for absorption—which is a policy matter—the court applied the logic of *Mohd. Abdul Kadir* to justify a directive for the State to objectively evaluate the petitioners' suitability for current programs based on their proven track record.

It granted the petitioners liberty to submit representations to the Collector (Respondent No. 2) and the Member Secretary of the Rajya Saksharta Samiti (Respondent No. 5) within 30 days.

The Court directed the Competent Authority to decide these representations within 120 days by taking a "decision objectively".

The authorities must account for the petitioners' previous experience, skills, and suitability for the current "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" in light of the legal principles cited.