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

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

They performed duties including conducting door-to-door adult education classes from 2009 until 2017.

Following a letter dated 15.05.2017 issued by the Union of India (Respondent No. 4) refusing to enhance honorariums and indicating potential termination, the petitioners approached the High Court.

While the "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" ended, the state transitioned through subsequent iterations: "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" (2020) and finally "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakram" (2022–2027), which covers similar functions.

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

1. Whether the petitioners, appointed under a specific socio-educational scheme, have a right to be absorbed or continued in service after the original scheme has been replaced by subsequent programs.

2. Whether the experience gained by the petitioners under a previous scheme must be considered by the State while making appointments under a current, similar scheme.

The Court primarily applied the principles of service jurisprudence regarding ad-hoc appointments in government schemes as articulated in *Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, Assam* (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 specific scheme continues to avoid the agony of artificial breaks and annual terminations.

Furthermore, the court noted that while policy matters involve financial implications beyond judicial mandate, courts may act as catalysts to ensure authorities consider public interest and experience when formulating or implementing policy changes.

The Court observed that although the original "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" had technically concluded, the Respondent State’s return admitted that the current "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakram" involves functions similar in nature.

The Court reasoned that the petitioners, having served from 2009 to 2017, possess "significant skills and experience," which should be viewed as an "additional asset" to the State for the successful implementation of the current 2022–2027 program.

While the Court acknowledged that it cannot direct absolute absorption into a new scheme as a matter of course, it found that the legal principles in *Mohd. Abdul Kadir* necessitated an objective evaluation of the petitioners' prior service and suitability by the competent authorities rather than summary rejection.

The Court granted the petitioners liberty to submit fresh representations 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 these representations within 120 days, "objectively taking into account the previous experience and skill of the respective petitioners" and their suitability for the "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakram" in light of the cited Supreme Court precedents.

All petitions were disposed of with these directions.