Absence of automatic right to absorption in subsequent schemes despite long-standing experience in predecessor projects.

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

They served from 2009 until 2017, receiving an initial honorarium of ₹700, later increased to ₹2,000.

On 15.05.2017, the Union of India issued a letter refusing to enhance this honorarium and signaling the potential termination of their employment.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking absorption into State government employment, an increase in honorarium to minimum wages, and the continuation of their services under successor schemes like "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm".

Whether the petitioners, appointed on an ad hoc basis under a specific government scheme, are entitled to continued employment or absorption after the scheme's expiration.

Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the petitioners’ eight years of experience for appointment under subsequent, similar literacy schemes launched by the State.

The Court primarily relied on the principles of service jurisprudence regarding ad hoc appointments under government schemes, as established by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and others v. Director General of Police, Assam and others (2009) 6 SCC 611.

This precedent dictates that while ad hoc employees do not have a right to regularization or security of tenure, they should generally be continued as long as the specific scheme remains in force to avoid the "agony and anxiety" of annual terminations.

It further establishes that while courts cannot make policy, they can act as catalysts when a change in policy is required to prevent detriment to public interest.

The Court observed that "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" ended but was replaced by successive schemes: "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" (2020) and "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (2022), the latter of which is slated to run until 2027.

The Court noted that the petitioners performed their duties for eight years, acquiring significant skills and experience in door-to-door literacy education.

Applying the logic from Mohd. Abdul Kadir, the Court reasoned that while the petitioners cannot claim a right to appointment as a matter of course since the original scheme ended, their experience constitutes an "additional asset" to the State.

Consequently, the Court found it equitable to direct the State to objectively evaluate the petitioners’ suitability for current programs based on their past conduct and the duration of their prior service.

The Court granted the petitioners liberty to submit representations to the Collector and the Rajya Saksharta Samiti Pradhikaran within 30 days.

The competent authorities were directed to decide these representations within 120 days, taking an "objective" view of the petitioners' skills and experience in light of the Supreme Court's directives in Mohd. Abdul Kadir.