Experience in discontinued government schemes warrants objective consideration for appointment in subsequent similar schemes.

The petitioners were appointed as coordinators (*Preraks*) on an honorarium basis under the "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram," a Central Government scheme aimed at providing adult education

They served from approximately 2009 until 2017, during which time their honorarium was marginally increased from Rs. 700 to Rs. 2,000

In 2017, following a communication from the Union of India (Respondent No. 4) dated 15.05.2017, the petitioners faced termination as the specific scheme neared completion and their requests for honorarium enhancement were refused

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking absorption into state employment, continuation of service, and minimum wage parity, arguing that subsequent schemes like "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (2022–2027) performed identical functions

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

The core doctrine specifies 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 exists to avoid the "agony and vicisitudes" of artificial breaks in service

Furthermore, the Court noted that while policy-making is an executive prerogative, the judiciary acts as a "catalyst" when public interest necessitates a policy change or objective consideration of experienced personnel

The Court observed that although the original "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" had officially ended, the State’s own return admitted that it had been replaced by successive programs—namely "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" in 2020 and "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" in 2022—which involve functions of a similar nature

The Court reasoned that the petitioners had acquired significant "skills and experience" over eight years of service (2009–2017), which should be viewed as an "additional asset" for the State in implementing current educational programs

While acknowledging that the petitioners cannot claim appointment as a matter of course after a scheme's expiration, the Court determined that the principles in *Mohd. Abdul Kadir* require the State to act objectively rather than mechanically terminating experienced staff when the underlying task remains perennial

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 Authority was directed to pass an objective decision within 120 days, specifically considering the petitioners' "previous experience, skills, and suitability" for the current "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (running 2022–2027) in light of the cited Supreme Court precedents