Ad Hoc Employees Under Expired Schemes May Seek Consideration for Reappointment in Subsequent Perennial Schemes

The petitioners were appointed as coordinators (Preraks) under the "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram," a Central Government scheme launched to provide education to adults on an honorarium basis.

They served from 2009 until 2017, at which point the original scheme was phased out and replaced by subsequent programs: "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" (2020) and "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (2022).

The petitioners challenged a letter dated 15.05.2017 which refused an increase in honorarium and threatened termination.

They sought absorption into state employment, continuation of service under the new schemes, and payment of minimum wages.

1. Whether the petitioners, appointed under a specific time-bound scheme, have a legal right to be absorbed or continued in service under subsequent, different schemes.

2. Whether the state is obligated to consider the petitioners' prior experience and conduct for recruitment in the current "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (2022–2027).

The Court primarily applied the service jurisprudence principle regarding ad-hoc appointments under government schemes as established in Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, Assam (2009) 6 SCC 611.

The doctrine dictates that while ad-hoc employees under a scheme do not have a right to regularization or security of tenure, they should generally be continued as long as the specific scheme exists to avoid the "vicissitudes of annual termination".

Furthermore, while courts cannot formulate policy, they act as "catalysts" to ensure public interest and experience are considered by authorities.

The Court noted that the "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" under which petitioners were appointed had officially ended, and as per the State's return, the current "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (effective 01.04.2022 to 2027) involves functions similar in nature to the original program.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioners performed duties for approximately eight years (2009–2017), they had acquired "significant skills and experience" which constitutes an "additional asset" for the State.

Rather than granting a direct order for absorption—which would interfere with policy—the Court determined that the equitable approach was to mandate a formal review of the petitioners' cases in light of their specialized experience and the continuing nature of the educational objectives.

It granted the petitioners liberty to submit a representation to the Collector (Respondent No. 2) and the Rajya Saksharta Samiti Pradhikaran (Respondent No. 5) within 30 days.

The competent authorities were directed to decide on the representation within 120 days, objectively considering the petitioners' "previous experience, skill, and suitability" for the current program as per the principles in Mohd. Abdul Kadir.