Authorities must consider prior experience of scheme-based employees when making appointments under subsequent perennial schemes.

The petitioners were appointed as coordinators (Preraks) under the "Sakshar Bharat Karyakaram," a Central Government scheme aimed at providing adult education.

They served from 2009 until 2017 on an honorarium basis, which was eventually increased to ₹2000/-.

Upon the expiration of the original scheme, the petitioners’ services were not continued, nor were they absorbed into subsequent government programs.

Respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 15.05.2017 refusing to enhance honorariums and indicating potential termination.

The petitioners challenged this letter and sought absorption or continuation in the successor scheme, "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm," which performs similar functions.

1. Whether the petitioners, appointed under a specific time-bound scheme, have a right to be absorbed or continued in a successor scheme after the original scheme has ended.

2. Whether the state is required to consider the petitioners' prior experience and the perennial nature of the task when implementing new policy-driven education schemes.

The court primarily relied on the principles of service jurisprudence regarding scheme-based appointments set out 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, they should generally be continued as long as the scheme exists to avoid the "agony and anxiety" of annual terminations.

Furthermore, it holds that if a task is perennial, it should not be treated as a temporary scheme merely to deny benefits.

The Court observed that while the original "Sakshar Bharat Karyakarm" had ended, the state government had introduced successor schemes—"Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" in 2020 and "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" in 2022—which involve functions similar to the previous program.

The Court noted that the petitioners had acquired significant skills and experience over eight years (2009-2017), which should be viewed as an "additional asset" to the State for the current program running from 2022-2027.

Applying the logic from Mohd. Abdul Kadir, the Court reasoned that while it cannot dictate policy or order automatic absorption, the State must objectively evaluate the suitability of experienced hands for the current, functionally similar programs rather than replacing them arbitrarily.

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

The Competent Authority was directed to decide the representation within 120 days of receipt.

The Court ordered that this decision must be made objectively, specifically accounting for the petitioners' prior experience, skills, and the legal principles regarding the continuity of scheme-based staff as established by the Supreme Court.