Prior scheme experience must be objectively considered for appointments in successor government literacy programs.

The petitioners (49 in the lead case and several others in connected petitions) were appointed as Coordinators (*Preraks*) under the Central Government scheme "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" between 2009 and 2017.

They were appointed on an honorarium basis, initially receiving ₹700, later enhanced to ₹2000.

Their duties involved conducting door-to-door adult education classes.

In 2017, following a letter from the Union of India dated 15.05.2017, the respondents refused to further enhance the honorarium and threatened the termination of the scheme.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking absorption into State government employment, continuation of service, and enhancement of honorarium to minimum wages.

During the pendency of the litigation, the original scheme was replaced by "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" (2020) and subsequently "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakram" (2022), which remains active for the 2022–2027 period.

1. Whether the petitioners, having been appointed under a specific government scheme, have a legal right to be absorbed or continued in service after the said scheme has been replaced by a subsequent scheme.

2. Whether the experience gained by the petitioners under a previous identical scheme entitles them to preferential consideration for appointments in the successor scheme, "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakram".

The Court primarily relied on the principles of service jurisprudence concerning 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 doctrine dictates 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 continues to avoid the "agony and vicisitudes" of artificial breaks.

Furthermore, the Court recognized that while policy matters regarding scheme implementation are within the executive domain, the Judiciary acts as a "catalyst" for policy change where public interest is involved.

The Court noted that the "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" under which the petitioners served for approximately eight years had officially ended.

However, the State’s return acknowledged that the successor scheme, "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakram" (2022–2027), involves functions identical in nature to the previous one.

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

Applying the logic from *Mohd. Abdul Kadir*, the Court determined that since the task remains perennial despite the name change of the scheme, the petitioners’ cases merit objective reassessment by the competent authorities.

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

The Court directed the Competent Authority to decide said representation within 120 days of receipt, emphasizing that the decision must be made "objectively," taking into account the petitioners' previous experience, skills, suitability for the current "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakram," and the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court.