Heard Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Md. Jalal Uddin, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Deven Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. 2. From the perusal of the writ petition as well as from the submissions of the learned counsel of both the parties, it appears that the terms of the engagement of the writ petitioner and the private respondent No. 4 as Cook for Mid-day-Meal for the Yaingangpokpi Primary School had already expired. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submits that some observations may be made so that there may not be arbitrary and illegal appointment/engagement of the Cook for Mid-day-Meal for the Yaingangpokpi Primary School. The fact of the present case is that the petitioner was engaged as Cook for Mid-day-Meal for the Yaingangpokpi Primary School under the engagement order issued by the Zonal Education Officer, Zone-II Porompat dated 11.2.2005 for the month of February and March, 2005. But while the petitioner was working as the Cook for the Midday- Meal for the Yaingangpokpi Primary School for the said months, i.e. for February and March, 2005, the Zonal Education Officer issued another engagement order dated 30.3.2005 on the recommendation of the Hon'ble M.L.A for appointing the private respondent no.4 as Cook for the Mid-day-Meal for the said School. The writ petitioner has challenged the said engagement order dated 30.3.2005 only on the ground that the appointment of the said Cook for the Mid-day-Meal cannot be made on the behest of the Minister/M.L.A. and appointment/ engagement should be made strictly as per the guidelines for implementation of the Mid-day-Meal, i.e. the National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education (Mid- Day-Meal Scheme), 1995. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that this court in a writ petition similarly situated with the present case had passed final judgment and order dated 30.12.2005 in W.P(C) No. 887 of 2005, the operative portion of which reads as follows: “4. The said order dated 12.02.2005 and impugned order are examined, it is clear that the said engagement of the persons mentioned therein as Cooks was done as proposed by the Circle MLA. The said engagement should have been made as per guidelines of the said scheme and not at the behest of the Circle MLA. The said order dated 12.02.2005 and impugned order are examined, it is clear that the said engagement of the persons mentioned therein as Cooks was done as proposed by the Circle MLA. The said engagement should have been made as per guidelines of the said scheme and not at the behest of the Circle MLA. In view of these findings, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such, it is liable to be quashed. The said engagement of Cooks should have been made by the competent authority in accordance with the relevant guidelines of the scheme and not on direction, request or proposal of any other authority. However, since the term of engagement, vide impugned order, has already expired, there is no need for quashing the impugned order now. It is no longer in operation on its terms. Concerned respondent may take appropriate steps in order to ensure that relevant guidelines are followed in letter and spirit at the time of engagement of Cooks for implementation of the programme”. 3. For the reasons discussed above, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation and direction that the appointment/engagement of Cook for the said Yaingangpokpi Primary School should be made as per the guidelines for the implementation of the Mid-day-Meal Programme and it should not be made at the behest of the circle M.L.A/Minister. It is also made clear that the petitioner as well as the private respondent shall also be considered for appointment/engagement as Cook for the Mid-Day-Meal for the said Yaingangpokpi Primary School as per the guidelines.