Experience in terminated government schemes warrants objective consideration for appointment in successor schemes.

The petitioners were appointed as "Preraks" (coordinators) under the Central Government’s "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" scheme to provide door-to-door education.

They served from 2009 until 2017 on an honorarium basis, which was eventually increased to Rs. 2,000/-.

On 15.05.2017, the Union of India (Respondent No. 4) issued a letter refusing to enhance the honorarium and effectively threatening the termination of their employment as the scheme was phased out.

The petitioners sought quashing of the termination letter, absorption into State government employment, and enhanced honorarium based on minimum wages.

While the original scheme ended, it was replaced by subsequent programs: "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" (2020) and "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakram" (2022-2027).

The Court primarily applied the principles of service jurisprudence regarding scheme-based employment 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 scheme exists to avoid the "agony and humiliation" of annual terminations.

The Court also noted that such appointments are typically co-terminus with the scheme.

The Court observed that although the "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" had officially ended, the Respondent State’s return acknowledged that it had been replaced by the "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakram," which involves functions similar in nature and is slated to run from 2022 to 2027.

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

However, since the original scheme had technically concluded and new policies were in place, the Court determined that the appropriate remedy was not a direct order for absorption, but a directed administrative review of the petitioners’ suitability for the current program in light of their prior experience.

Instead, it granted liberty to the petitioners to submit a formal representation to the Collector and the Rajya Saksharta Samiti Pradhikaran (Respondents No. 2 and 5) within 30 days.

The Court directed the Competent Authority to decide the representation within 120 days, objectively considering the petitioners’ previous experience, skills, and conduct, as well as the legal principles in Mohd. Abdul Kadir.