01Facts
The petitioners were appointed as "Preraks" (coordinators) under the Central Government’s "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" scheme starting in 2009.
¶ 4They were engaged on an honorarium basis to provide literacy education.
¶ 4In 2017, respondent No. 4 issued a letter dated 15.05.2017 refusing to enhance their honorarium and threatening termination as the scheme was phased out.
¶ 4The petitioners sought quashing of the 2017 letter and an order for absorption or continuation in subsequent literacy schemes, such as "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm".
¶ 3, 4The State’s return confirmed that the original scheme had been replaced by successive programs with similar objectives.
¶ 902Issues
i.Whether the petitioners, appointed under a specific socio-economic scheme, have a right to continuation or absorption in subsequent, similar schemes after the original scheme has concluded.
¶ 4, 6ii.Whether the long-standing experience (8 years) of the petitioners under a scheme entitles them to objective consideration for appointments in successor schemes.
¶ 7, 1003Law Applied
The Court primarily relied on the principles of service jurisprudence regarding scheme-based employment as established in *Mohd. Abdul Kadir and others v. Director General of Police, Assam and others* (2009) 6 SCC 611.
¶ 4This precedent mandates that ad hoc appointments made under a scheme should generally continue as long as the scheme itself continues, to avoid the "agony and anxiety" of annual terminations.
¶ 4It further holds that while courts cannot create policy, they act as catalysts to ensure that authorities consider public interest and the security of tenure for staff performing perennial tasks under "temporary" labels.
¶ 404Reasoning
The Court observed that while the original "Sakshar Bharat" scheme ended, the State Government replaced it with the "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" (2020) and subsequently the "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (2022–2027).
¶ 9The Court noted that the nature of duties in the current scheme is substantially similar to the previous one.
¶ 9While the petitioners cannot claim a right to absorption as regular employees, the Court reasoned that their eight years of experience (2009–2017) constitutes a "significant asset" to the State.
¶ 4, 9Consequently, applying the *Mohd. Abdul Kadir* doctrine, the Court found that the petitioners’ experience and previous conduct warrant an objective evaluation by the State for recruitment in the current ongoing literacy programs.
¶ 1005Holding
The High Court disposed of the writ petitions without quashing the 2017 order but granted the petitioners liberty to submit representations to the Collector and the Rajya Saksharta Samiti Pradhikaran (Respondents 2 and 5) within 30 days.
¶ 10The Court directed the Competent Authority to decide these representations within 120 days.
¶ 10The authorities must objectively consider the petitioners' previous skills, experience, and suitability for the "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" in light of the legal principles cited.
¶ 10No order for immediate absorption was granted.
Original Court PDF
Heera Paikra & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [2026:CGHC:10605; WPS No. 2995 of 2017]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Experience and skills from prior government schemes warrant objective consideration in appointments to subsequent replacement schemes.. Heera Paikra & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [2026:CGHC:10605; WPS No. 2995 of 2017]. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/experience-and-skills-from-prior-government-schemes-warrant-objective-consideration-in-app-7fa91793e0c04a7ea823d038a26f93ea.webp)