### Prior Experience Under Terminated Schemes Must Be Considered for Appointments in Successor Government Programs

The petitioners were appointed as Coordinators (*Preraks*) under a Central Government Scheme titled "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram," aimed at providing adult education.

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

Upon the expiration of the scheme in 2017, their services were not continued, nor were they absorbed into subsequent government programs.

The petitioners challenged a letter dated 15.05.2017 issued by respondent No. 4, which refused to enhance their honorarium and signaled the termination of the scheme.

During the pendency of the litigation, the State introduced successor schemes: "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" (2020) and "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (2022-2027).

1. Whether the petitioners, having been recruited through a due process under a specific scheme, have a right to continued employment or absorption as long as a scheme of similar nature continues.

2. Whether the experience gained by the petitioners during their eight-year tenure mandates the State to consider them for appointments in successor programs like "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm".

The Court primarily relied on the principles of service jurisprudence regarding scheme-based employment as articulated in *Mohd. Abdul Kadir and others v. Director General of Police, Assam and others* (2009) 6 SCC 611.

This precedent establishes 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 specific scheme exists to avoid the "agony and anxiety" of annual terminations.

The Court also noted that while policy-making is the executive's domain, the judiciary can act as a "catalyst" for policy changes when public interest or fairness is involved.

The Court observed that while the original "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" scheme ended, it was replaced by subsequent iterations, namely "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" and the current "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (valid until 2027), which involve "functions similar in nature".

The Court reasoned that the petitioners' eight years of experience (2009–2017) constitutes a "significant skill" and an "additional asset" that the State Government could utilize for the effective implementation of the current program.

However, acknowledging the limitations of judicial review in policy and financial matters, the Court did not grant direct absorption but focused on the Requirement of the State to objectively evaluate the petitioners' past service and suitability for the current scheme.

The Competent Authority is directed to decide on the representation within 120 days of receipt, taking an "objective" view of the petitioners' previous experience, skills, and the legal principles established in *Mohd. Abdul Kadir*.

The Court held that the petitioners' suitability for the "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" must be evaluated in light of their tenure and the ongoing nature of the literacy programs.