Authorities must objectively consider experienced ad-hoc scheme employees for appointment in subsequent similar government schemes.

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

They served from 2009 to 2017 on an honorarium basis.

The dispute arose following a letter dated 15.05.2017 from the Union of India (Respondent No. 4) refusing to enhance honorariums and threatening termination as the scheme's tenure drew to a close.

While the original scheme ended, the State Government transitioned to subsequent programs: "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" (2020) and "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (2022–2027), which involve similar functions.

The petitioners sought absorption or continuation in these new schemes based on their eight years of experience.

Whether the petitioners, appointed under a specific scheme, have a right to be continued or absorbed in subsequent schemes performing similar functions.

Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the petitioners' prior experience and skills when staffing current educational programs.

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

This precedent holds that ad-hoc appointments under a scheme should generally continue as long as the scheme itself continues to avoid the "agony and anxiety" of annual terminations.

It further establishes that while courts cannot make policy, they act as catalysts to ensure authorities attend to issues of public interest and tenure security for staff performing perennial tasks.

The Court observed that although the "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" technically ended, the respondent State admitted in its return that it was replaced by functionally identical schemes, currently the "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (2022–2027).

The Court reasoned that the petitioners, having worked from 2009 to 2017, possess "significant skills and experience" that constitute an "additional asset" to the State Government for the success of such programs.

By applying the logic in *Mohd. Abdul Kadir*, the Court determined that the respondents should objectively evaluate the petitioners' suitability for current schemes rather than summarily excluding them, provided they meet the criteria and the work remains perennial in nature.

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

The Competent Authority is directed to decide on these representations within 120 days, taking into account the petitioners' previous experience, skills, and the legal principles regarding scheme-based tenure laid down in the *Mohd. Abdul Kadir* judgment.