Authorities must objectively consider experienced ad-hoc scheme workers for appointments in successor government schemes.

The petitioners were appointed as coordinators (Preraks) on an honorarium basis under the Central Government scheme "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" between 2009 and 2017.

Their duties involved conducting door-to-door literacy classes.

In 2017, respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 15.05.2017 refusing to enhance honorariums and indicating potential termination.

The original scheme ended and was replaced sequentially by "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" (2020) and "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (2022).

The petitioners sought absorption, continuation of service, or enhancement of honorariums to minimum wages, arguing that the subsequent schemes perform identical functions.

Whether the petitioners, appointed under a specific time-bound scheme, have a right to be absorbed or continued in subsequent schemes of a similar nature.

Whether the state should consider the petitioners' prior eight years of experience when making appointments under new literacy programs.

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

This precedent holds that while ad-hoc employees under a scheme have no right to regularization or security of tenure, they should generally be continued as long as the specific scheme continues to avoid the "agony and vicisitudes" of annual terminations.

The Court also noted the principle that while courts cannot make policy, they can act as catalysts for policy changes in the public interest.

The Court observed that while the original "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" scheme had technically concluded, the Respondent State’s return admitted that subsequent schemes—currently "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (2022-2027)—involve functions similar in nature to the work performed by the petitioners.

The Court reasoned that the petitioners' eight years of service (2009–2017) provided them with "significant skills and experience," which should be viewed as an "additional asset" for the State in fulfilling the objectives of the current literacy programs.

Although the petitioners could not claim appointment as a matter of right once the original scheme ended, the Court determined that their experience warranted an objective evaluation by the competent authorities in light of the Mohd. Abdul Kadir ruling.

The Court directed the competent authorities to decide the representation within 120 days, specifically ordering that the decision be made "objectively" by taking into account the petitioners' previous experience, skills, and suitability for the current "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" program, referencing established legal principles.