Experience and skills from prior government schemes warrant objective consideration in appointments to subsequent replacement schemes.

The petitioners were appointed as "Preraks" (coordinators) under the Central Government’s "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" scheme starting in 2009.

They were engaged on an honorarium basis to provide literacy education.

In 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.

The petitioners sought quashing of the 2017 letter and an order for absorption or continuation in subsequent literacy schemes, such as "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm".

The State’s return confirmed that the original scheme had been replaced by successive programs with similar objectives.

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.

Whether the long-standing experience (8 years) of the petitioners under a scheme entitles them to objective consideration for appointments in successor schemes.

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.

This 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.

It 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.

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).

The Court noted that the nature of duties in the current scheme is substantially similar to the previous one.

While 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.

Consequently, 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.

The Court directed the Competent Authority to decide these representations within 120 days.

The authorities must objectively consider the petitioners' previous skills, experience, and suitability for the "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" in light of the legal principles cited.

No order for immediate absorption was granted.